____________________________________________________________________
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
AI Regulation Researchers Contribute to AI Act Commentary
The Chair AI Regulation proudly highlights the involvement of its researchers in the book “The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: A Commentary” (Wolters Kluwer).
The Chair’s Research Fellow, Dr. Theodoros Karathanasis, contributed with a commentary on “Article 17 – Quality Management System” of the AI Act. The commentary explains the Article’s requirements, including aspects like risk management, data governance, and post-market monitoring. It examines the legal background, drawing on international standards (ISO, OECD) and existing EU legislation. The analysis clarifies the scope of application, particularly concerning financial institutions and public authorities. Finally, it details the process of achieving compliance through conformity assessment, highlighting the roles of notified bodies and the interplay with sectoral regulations.
Dr. Stavros Tsipras (former research fellow of the Chair) contributed with a commentary on “Article 16 – Obligations of Providers of High-Risk AI Systems” of the AI Act. The commentary outlines numerous requirements, including compliance with safety and data regulations, transparency measures, and accessibility provisions. The text further explores the international context, comparing the EU’s approach with similar legislation in Canada, Brazil, and China, highlighting variations in terminology and implementation. A risk-based approach is central, with obligations tailored to the level of risk posed by the AI system. Finally, the document clarifies the roles of various actors in the AI value chain, including providers, developers, and deployers, and addresses the importance of harmonised standards and the ‘state of the art’.
These contributions are attributable only to the authors and does not necessarily reflect the view of the other members of the AI-Regulation Chair or any partner organizations.
These works have been partially supported by MIAI @ Grenoble Alpes, (ANR-19-P3IA-0003) and by the Interdisciplinary Project on Privacy (IPoP) commissioned by the Cybersecurity PEPR (ANR 22-PECY-0002 IPOP).
Like this article?
Team AI regulation