Unveiling Trade Secrets: Exploring the Implications of trade agreements for AI Regulation in the Global South
Event report
Speakers:
- Deborah James
- Mariana Rielli
Moderators:
- Melanie Foley
Table of contents
Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the IGF session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed. The official record of the session can be found on the IGF's official website.
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Audience
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.
Speaker 1
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.
Mariana Rielli
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.
Sofia
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.
Moderator
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.
Speakers
A
Audience
Speech speed
138 words per minute
Speech length
61 words
Speech time
27 secs
Arguments
Risk-based regulation only starts when there is identification of a concrete risk, often disregarding instances where an impact is not considered extreme despite the high likelihood of occurrence.
Supporting facts:
- Risk is calculated as likelihood times impact
- AI applications that have high likelihood but low perceived impact often go unregulated
Topics: AI regulation, Risk-based regulation
Rights-based regulation provides a baseline where transparency is required for every single AI system regardless of risk.
Supporting facts:
- Rights to transparency exist in every single case
- This means company requirements for providing information can be litigated
Topics: AI regulation, Rights-based regulation
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.
MR
Mariana Rielli
Speech speed
141 words per minute
Speech length
2454 words
Speech time
1045 secs
Arguments
Brazil has been working on creating a comprehensive legal framework for AI
Supporting facts:
- this process has been ongoing for the last two years
- the proposed text has been drafted by a committee of experts over 10 months
- it has been supported by multi-stakeholder groups and has involved public hearings and participatory processes
Topics: AI regulation, Brazilian General Data Protection Law, multi-stakeholder work, digital rights
Brazilian AI regulation is rights-based, not risk-based
Supporting facts:
- The Brazilian AI proposal emphasizes and is rooted in constitutional provisions that protect fundamental rights and data protection.
- Brazil's society is historically unequal regarding issues with racism and discrimination, and this was taken into account in proposing the regulation.
Topics: AI regulation, data protection, constitutional provisions, fundamental rights, autonomy and self-determination
Risk-based regulation only starts when a concrete risk is identified, not taking into consideration likely occurrences with lower impact.
Supporting facts:
- Risk is likelihood times impact.
- Certain applications of AI with very probable scenarios but non-extreme impacts are overlooked.
Topics: AI Regulation, Risk Assessment
Rights-based regulation ensures a right to transparency for every case of AI system, providing a baseline.
Supporting facts:
- Transparency requirements exist regardless of risk.
- Companies are required to provide information and rights can be litigated.
Topics: AI Regulation, Transparency
EU AI Act proposal and the proposal under consideration in Brazil are risk-based regulations
Supporting facts:
- The EU AI Act proposal is a risk-based regulation
- The proposal being discussed in Brazil includes elements of risk modulation
Topics: EU AI Act, Regulation in Brazil, Risk-based regulation
Regulation is always looking at the past, but real, concrete examples of AI impact on second-generation rights exist
Supporting facts:
- The scandal in Netherlands about use of automated decision-making to identify potential fraud with welfare checks
- The use of that system ruined the lives of many people who were considered fraudulent and lost their livelihood
Topics: AI Impact, Second-Generation Rights, Regulation
Most people are unware of AI's impact and cannot trace the effect to the AI system
Supporting facts:
- There is a large asymmetry of power and information
Topics: AI Impact, Public Awareness
Need for collective imagination, creativity and accessibly to AI technology to reduce asymmetry of power and information
Supporting facts:
- Although small companies and groups will never have requisite resources, certain level of access and ownership is necessary
Topics: AI Accessibility, Information Asymmetry
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.
M
Moderator
Speech speed
181 words per minute
Speech length
540 words
Speech time
179 secs
Arguments
Latin America has enormous potential in AI and is committed to developing its own technological solutions to address regional issues
Supporting facts:
- Latin America has great engineers and experts who are creating high-quality AI tools
- Latin American countries are working with UNESCO and following AI principles
- A number of startups and new tools are being developed for healthcare and education based on AI
Topics: AI, Latin America, Technological Development
Despite potential in AI, Latin America faces significant challenges, especially in acquiring appropriate data
Supporting facts:
- Engineers and developers often do not have suitable data to create their tools
- In many cases, they are forced to buy data from European and Asian countries
- The tools are less accurate because they do not reflect the local populations they are trying to help
Topics: AI, Latin America, Data Access
Latin America needs more policy space and time to create the regulations necessary for dealing with AI
Supporting facts:
- There is a lag and ill-informed negotiations in harmonizing AI regulations within region and with the world
- Rapid and premature dealings can undermine efforts to create Latin America-specific AI solutions
- There need for more matured debate and dialogue between public and private sectors
Topics: AI, Latin America, Policy Making
Free trade agreements can restrain the development and control of AI in Latin America
Supporting facts:
- Free trade agreements such as TPP do not allow for the taxing of data flows and restrict access to data and source code
- Signing such agreements can lead to difficulties in regulating AI internally
Topics: Free Trade Agreements, AI, Latin America
A risk-based approach to AI disadvantages workers
Supporting facts:
- Employers are using AI to make major decisions such as who to hire and fire
- Under a risk-based approach, the burden of proof is on the worker to demonstrate that their rights have been violated by an AI
- This requires access to the AI's workings, which is often locked behind intellectual property rights and trade secrets
Topics: Artificial Intelligence, Labour Rights, Accountability
A rights-based approach to AI could ensure accountability
Supporting facts:
- Under a rights-based approach, companies would have to demonstrate that their AI does not violate workers' rights before it can be used
- This pre-emptive approach could prevent the harm to workers from occurring in the first place
Topics: Artificial Intelligence, Labour Rights, Accountability
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.
S
Sofia
Speech speed
172 words per minute
Speech length
3274 words
Speech time
1144 secs
Arguments
AI technologies need to be diverse and represent all aspects of every country
Supporting facts:
- AI is an important tool for transforming society in regions including health, education, and public policy
- The AI community in Latin America held a summit and expressed concern about access to data to build tools
Topics: Artificial Intelligence, Diversity, Representativeness
Data accessibility is a challenge for developing AI tools in Latin America
Supporting facts:
- Most AI developers in Latin America do not find suitable local data and have to buy from Europe or Asia
- The KIPPO 2023 summit emphasized the necessity of local data for developing accurate AI tools
Topics: Artificial Intelligence, Data Accessibility, Digital Rights
The growth of free trade agreements in Latin America could harm the region's ability to regulate digital rights and data flows
Supporting facts:
- The TPP does not allow for the taxing of data flows or access to source code
- There's a disconnect between those regulating AI within countries and those dealing with foreign affairs
- The U.S. Embassy pushes for data flow freedom, which could disadvantage countries wishing to keep some data locally for AI development
Topics: Free Trade Agreements, Digital Rights, Data Flows
AI brings challenges in assessment and regulation due to its rapidly evolving nature
Supporting facts:
- Regulators struggle to regulate AI as it evolves at a rapid pace and it's hard to predict the future impact
- Whenever we ask regulators, we need regulation on AI, it's really hard to regulate something that didn't happen yet
Topics: AI, Regulation, Assessment
AI has potential impact on collective rights especially in workplace
Supporting facts:
- AI will affect workers' rights and unions need to defend these rights
- Unions should be explained what kind of systems are there and they should assess if those systems are right
- Unions should have the right to demand changes in AI systems that impact workers
Topics: AI, Collective rights, Labor Rights, Trade Unions
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.
S1
Speaker 1
Speech speed
218 words per minute
Speech length
1942 words
Speech time
535 secs
Arguments
Rights-based approach to AI regulation can be more beneficial for workers
Supporting facts:
- Employers are increasingly using AI to manage workers, affecting hiring, promotions, and terminations
- A risk-based approach makes it difficult for workers to challenge decisions made by AI
Topics: AI regulation, Worker's rights, AI in workplace
Trade agreements just ban source code disclosure with minimal exceptions, which can be harmful
Supporting facts:
- Companies have multiple levels of intellectual property protection for their AI
Topics: AI regulation, Trade agreements, Source code disclosure
Data should be used in the public interest to solve problems
Supporting facts:
- Control over data is crucial for economic development
- Investment for who is using data and for what purpose is currently driven by the private sector
Topics: Data usage, Public interest
Digital industrialization and data sovereignty are crucial for development
Supporting facts:
- Countries need access to the data they produce for development
- Big tech corporations often monopolize data, creating digital colonialism
Topics: Digital industrialization, Data sovereignty
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.