Hiroshima AI Process
Context
- The annual Group of Seven (G7) Summit, hosted by Japan, took place in Hiroshima recently. Among other matters, the G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communiqué initiated the Hiroshima AI Process (HAP) – an effort by this bloc to determine a way forward to regulate artificial intelligence (AI).
- Even as the G7 countries are using such fora to deliberate AI regulation, they are acting on their own instead of waiting for the outcomes from the HAP. So while there is an accord to regulate AI, the discord – as evident in countries preferring to go their own paths – will also continue.
What is the Hiroshima AI process?
- The communiqué accorded more importance to AI than the technology has ever received in such a forum – even as G7 leaders were engaged with other issues like the war in Ukraine, economic security, supply chain disruptions, and nuclear disarmament.
- It said that the G7 is determined to work with others to advance international discussions on inclusive AI governance and interoperability to achieve our common vision and goal of trustworthy AI, in line with our shared democratic value.
Why is the process notable?
- While the communiqué doesn’t indicate the expected outcomes from the HAP, there is enough in there to indicate what values and norms will guide it and where it will derive its guiding principles, based on which to govern AI, from.
- The communiqué as well as the ministerial declaration also say more than once that AI development and implementation must be aligned with values such as freedom, democracy, and human rights. Values need to be linked to principles that drive regulation. To this end, the communiqué also stresses fairness, accountability, transparency, and safety.
What does the process entail?
- The task before the HAP is really challenging considering the divergence among G7 countries in, among other things, regulating risks arising out of applying AI. It can help these countries develop a common understanding on some key regulatory issues while ensuring that any disagreement doesn’t result in complete discord.
Is there an example of how the process can help?
- The matter of intellectual property rights (IPR) offers an example of how the HAP can help. Here, the question is whether training a generative AI model, like ChatGPT, on copyrighted material constitutes a copyright violation.
- While IPR in the context of AI finds mention in the communiqué, the relationship between AI and IPR and in different jurisdictions is not clear. There have been several conflicting interpretations and judicial pronouncements.
- The HAP can help the G7 countries move towards a consensus on this issue by specifying guiding rules and principles related to AI and IPR. For example, the process can bring greater clarity to the role and scope of the ‘fair use’ doctrine in the use of AI for various purposes.
- Generally, the ‘fair use’ exception is invoked to allow activities like teaching, research, and criticism to continue without seeking the copyright-owner’s permission to use their material. Whether use of copyrighted materials in datasets for machine learning is fair use is a controversial issue.
- As an example, the HAP can develop a common guideline for G7 countries that permits the use of copyrighted materials in datasets for machine-learning as ‘fair use’, subject to some conditions. It can also differentiate use for machine-learning per se from other AI-related uses of copyrighted materials.
- This in turn could affect the global discourse and practice on this issue.
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/hiroshima-ai-process-g7-explained/article66959829.ece
Subscribe
Login
0 Comments