Unveiling Trade Secrets: Exploring the Implications of trade agreements for AI Regulation in the Global South

Report

The analysis provides a comprehensive examination of three different arguments related to regulation and trade agreements.

The first argument centres around risk-based regulation. It argues that such regulation only begins when a concrete risk is identified, often disregarding instances where the impact may not be considered extreme despite a high likelihood of occurrence.

The argument emphasises that risk is calculated by multiplying likelihood with impact. It further highlights the concern that certain AI applications, which may have a high likelihood but a perceived low impact, often go unregulated. The overall sentiment of this argument is negative, indicating a concern that risk-based regulation may overlook potential risks due to a narrow focus on extreme impacts.

The second argument supports rights-based regulation.

This regulatory approach insists on transparency from every AI system, regardless of risk. The argument points out that rights to transparency exist in every single case, creating legal obligations for companies to provide information. This argument demonstrates a positive sentiment towards rights-based regulation, as it establishes a baseline where transparency is required for all AI systems, ensuring accountability and public trust.

The third argument explores trade agreements, with a neutral stance from the audience.

The audience’s belief or assumption suggests that they perceive trade agreements to be more risk-based. Although the details of this argument are limited, it provides insightful perspective into the audience’s perception of the nature of trade agreements. The audience’s neutrality implies a reserved stance, neither fully supporting nor opposing the notion that trade agreements are more risk-based.

Overall, the analysis highlights the contrasting perspectives and approaches to regulation, specifically the comparison between risk-based and rights-based regulation.

It underscores the importance of striking a balance between tangible risks and the potential impact of AI applications. Additionally, the analysis offers thought-provoking insights into the perceived relationship between trade agreements and risk.

Report

Brazil has been diligently working for the past two years to establish a comprehensive legal framework for the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The proposed AI regulation in Brazil is rights-based, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights and data protection in accordance with constitutional provisions.

This approach takes into account Brazil’s history of racial inequality and discrimination, ensuring that the regulation addresses the country’s social challenges.

However, Brazil’s involvement in trade agreements has raised concerns about potential conflicts with its internal AI regulations.

There seems to be a shift in Brazil’s stance to align more closely with the United States, which disregards its own internal regulations. This conflict between trade agreements and internal regulations may pose obstacles to the effective implementation of the proposed AI bill.

One aspect of the proposed AI regulation in Brazil is its risk-based approach.

Critics argue that this approach only considers tangible risks, neglecting likely occurrences with lower impact. They propose a more comprehensive risk assessment that also takes into account probable scenarios that may not have extreme consequences. This highlights the need for a balanced risk assessment considering both likelihood and impact.

Transparency is another crucial element addressed in the proposed AI regulation in Brazil.

Companies are required to provide information about their AI systems, and individuals have the right to litigate if their rights are violated. This rights-based approach ensures a minimum level of transparency in every case involving AI systems, irrespective of associated risks.

The European Union’s AI Act proposal also follows a risk-based approach, similar to the proposal under consideration in Brazil.

This suggests some alignment in the global approach to AI regulation. However, it is important to distinguish trade agreements from risk-based AI regulation and avoid compromising the integrity of AI regulation due to trade agreements.

Advocates for comprehensive AI regulation argue that real-life examples of AI’s impact on second-generation rights should be considered.

One notable example is the scandal in the Netherlands involving automated decision-making systems used to identify potential welfare fraud. Unfortunately, this system wrongly affected innocent individuals, who suffered the loss of their livelihoods. Such instances underline the importance of robust regulation to prevent future abuses and protect individual rights.

Furthermore, there is a significant power and information asymmetry surrounding AI’s impact, with most people unaware of the consequences and unable to trace them back to AI algorithms.

This knowledge gap perpetuates power imbalances and undermines transparency. Addressing this issue requires fostering collective imagination, creativity, and accessibility to AI technology, empowering individuals with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions and prevent the concentration of power.

In conclusion, Brazil’s ongoing efforts to establish a comprehensive legal framework for AI regulation are commendable.

The proposed regulation adopts a rights-based approach, prioritizing fundamental rights and data protection. However, challenges arise due to Brazil’s involvement in trade agreements, potentially conflicting with its internal regulations. The risk-based nature of the proposed regulation necessitates considering likely occurrences with lower impact.

Transparency requirements and lessons from real-life examples of AI’s impact must be incorporated into the regulatory framework. Addressing the power and information asymmetry regarding AI’s impact is crucial for ensuring a fair and equitable AI landscape in Brazil and beyond.

Report

Latin America has immense potential in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and is dedicated to developing its own technological solutions to tackle regional issues. The region is home to exceptional engineers and experts who are creating top-quality AI tools.

Furthermore, Latin American countries are actively collaborating with UNESCO and adhering to AI principles. Remarkably, there is a growing number of startups and innovative tools based on AI, particularly in healthcare and education.

Despite this potential, Latin America encounters significant challenges, especially when it comes to acquiring relevant data.

Engineers and developers often lack access to suitable data, compelling them to purchase it from European and Asian countries. Consequently, the AI tools produced are less accurate as they do not adequately reflect the local populations they aim to assist.

Another obstacle lies in the need for more time and policy freedom to establish regulations governing AI usage.

The region experiences delays and ill-informed negotiations in harmonising AI regulations within Latin America and the rest of the world. It is crucial to foster more mature and informed debate and dialogue between the public and private sectors to establish effective and appropriate AI regulations.

Free trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), present an additional challenge to the development and control of AI in Latin America.

These agreements restrict the taxing of data flows and limit access to data and source code. As a result, they can impede the region’s ability to regulate AI effectively within its own boundaries.

Moreover, the current risk-based approach to AI places workers at a disadvantage.

Under this approach, the burden of proof falls on the worker to demonstrate that their rights have been violated by an AI system. This is often difficult, as access to the inner workings of the AI system is typically locked behind intellectual property rights and trade secrets.

However, adopting a rights-based approach to AI could ensure greater accountability and prevent harm to workers.

In this approach, companies would be required to demonstrate that their AI systems do not violate workers’ rights before implementing them. This proactive approach has the potential to address issues before they occur, safeguarding workers’ rights in the process.

Based on the analysis, it is evident that Latin America requires proactive regulations to protect workers’ rights against the unchecked implementation of AI.

The labour ministry should have the authority to verify AI software for potential violations before its implementation in the workplace. The current practice, which heavily favors companies by allowing them to shield their AI behind intellectual property and trade secrets without proper scrutiny, needs to be reevaluated.

In conclusion, Latin America possesses significant potential in the field of AI, with exceptional engineers and experts creating top-quality AI tools.

However, there are challenges to overcome, including the need for relevant data, ample time for policy development, and the restrictions imposed by free trade agreements. Additionally, the current risk-based approach to AI disadvantages workers, underscoring the importance of adopting a rights-based approach.

Implementing proactive regulations that protect workers’ rights and allowing scrutiny of AI systems by the labour ministry are crucial steps towards maximising the potential benefits of AI in Latin America.

Report

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Latin America faces numerous challenges, as highlighted at a regional summit. One concern raised is limited access to data needed for AI tool development. Many developers struggle to find suitable local data and must buy it from Europe or Asia, hindering accurate and region-specific AI applications.

The KIPPO 2023 summit emphasized the importance of having access to relevant and reliable data for effective AI tools.

Another challenge is the impact of free trade agreements on AI development and regulation in the region. For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership does not permit taxing data flows or access to source code.

This creates a gap between AI regulators and foreign affairs authorities, potentially disadvantaging Latin American countries that wish to retain some data locally. This issue raises concerns about regulating digital rights and data flows in the region.

The summit stressed the need to evaluate the environmental and social impacts of AI when creating regulations.

The app ‘Rappi’ was cited as an example, where an algorithm requiring unnecessary worker movement caused environmental and safety concerns. However, algorithm changes can mitigate such impacts while maintaining profitability. This highlights the importance of considering the broader implications of AI on climate action, decent work, and public health.

Latin America also calls for more time and resources to develop its own AI technologies and regulatory frameworks.

The dialogue between private and public sectors regarding AI development is still in its early stages, and existing trade agreements may restrict the region’s ability to create tailored policies and regulations. However, Latin America has the potential to build sovereign technologies addressing regional challenges.

Regulating AI presents challenges due to its rapidly evolving nature.

Regulators struggle to keep pace with AI development and predict future impacts. This poses difficulties in developing appropriate assessment and regulation mechanisms, making effective governance a constant challenge.

The impact of AI on collective rights, particularly in the workplace, is a significant concern.

Trade unions advocate for the defense of workers’ rights and demand the right to assess AI systems. Unions ensure AI systems prioritize collective rights and well-being, and can demand necessary changes when workers are adversely affected.

Additionally, there is a growing call for more democratic regulation of AI.

Community rights should be given equal priority alongside individual rights. Unions play a vital role in AI regulation, enabling them to contribute to the decision-making process. Prioritizing community rights and involving unions can lead to inclusive and ethical AI development and governance.

In conclusion, the AI summit in Latin America highlighted the challenges and concerns surrounding AI development and regulation in the region.

Limited access to data, the impact of free trade agreements on digital rights, environmental and social considerations, the need for more resources, the evolving nature of AI, the impact on collective rights, and the call for democratic regulation are key focus areas.

Effective and inclusive AI policies and practices in Latin America require a collaborative approach involving multiple stakeholders.

Report

Employers are increasingly using AI to manage their workforce, affecting various aspects such as hiring, promotions, and terminations. However, the use of a risk-based approach in AI decision-making makes it difficult for workers to challenge or contest decisions made by AI systems.

To address this issue, proponents argue for a rights-based approach to AI regulation, prioritising the protection of workers’ rights. One proposal is to require companies using AI to demonstrate that their AI systems do not violate workers’ rights before implementing them.

This obligation would help ensure that workers’ rights are safeguarded and prevent potential violations.

In the context of trade agreements, there is often a ban on source code disclosure, with minimal exceptions. Critics argue that this approach can be harmful as it limits transparency and accountability in AI systems.

Moreover, control over data is crucial for economic development. Currently, investment decisions regarding data usage are primarily driven by the private sector. To overcome this, advocates contend that data should be used in the public interest to address societal problems.

Another important aspect is the relationship between digital industrialization, data sovereignty, and development.

Countries should have access to the data they produce, as it plays a vital role in their progress. However, concerns arise over the monopolization of data by big tech corporations, leading to digital colonialism. Opposing the big tech’s push for the ‘free flow of data’ is justified, as it often results in one-sided corporate transfer and exploitation of data from developing countries.

Furthermore, maintaining policy space for local regulation in the public interest is essential.

There is a concern that including environmental services in trade agreements may limit the ability to regulate in the public interest. Preserving policy space allows for regulations that benefit society and prevent undue influence or interference in local issues.

In summary, the increased use of AI in the workplace has significant implications for workers’ rights, necessitating a rights-based approach to AI regulation.

A ban on source code disclosure in trade agreements is seen as harmful, while control over data is viewed as crucial for economic development, with emphasis on using it in the public interest. Digital industrialization and data sovereignty are crucial for development, while opposing the ‘free flow of data’ protects developing countries from exploitation.

Lastly, maintaining policy space for local regulation ensures tailored regulations that serve local needs, including regulation in the public interest.