OECD's AI Standards Lack Force, But Could Help Navigate Development Risk
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation presented a new set of global standards for the use of AI that could provide an essential blueprint to companies struggling to gauge the direction the regulatory wind will blow.
May 28, 2019 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
Last week, the U.S. and 35 other member countries that comprise the Organization for Economic Co-Operation (OECD) agreed to a set of intergovernmental standards pertaining to the use of AI.
Before anyone gets too excited, standards are just that—not rules, per se, but they do lay out some expectations that AI will be used in ways protect human rights, prioritize safety/security and lay some measure of accountability at the feet of the people deploying the technology. And that might be enough to seriously impact the future of AI.
“I think you will see people giving very close attention to these things, whether they are the force of law or not. We have de jure standards and de facto standards all the time, and some de facto standards just become sort of absolutely required. People expect them,” said Stuart Meyer, a partner in the intellectual property group at Fenwick & West.
Indeed, the OECD standards don't mark the first time that the subject of AI regulation has been broached. In the U.S., for example, financial regulators have been long keeping an eye on the use of algorithms and automated decision making tools at financial firms.
Meyer compared the trajectory of AI through the public consciousness to that of privacy: It's always been somewhat important, but has really exploded over the last 10 to 20 years. However, even privacy is weighted differently across global jurisdictions, so individual principals featured in the standards—such as non-discrimination, diversity and fairness—may be differently presented in a potential American regulation than it would in, say, Brazil.
“I think that you'll see as those get implemented in different places, they're going to reflect the norms in those societies,” Meyer said.
Meanwhile, private industry may start benefiting from the presence of a global standard right away. Meyer thinks having a set of criteria to work towards could actually help with the design and implementation of AI products.
For example, the OECD guidelines call for AI actors to ensure traceability in relation data sets, processes and decisions made during the system's lifecycle so that any related outcomes can be analyzed. Companies don't want to invest in developing tools that don't incorporate core tenants like traceability if either a new law or just public sentiment will force them back to the drawing board.
“If you create a jet airplane and then realize it only has one engine and redundancy really requires two engines, you can't just tape another engine onto the prototype. You have to start all over,” Meyer said.
Still, it's possible to go too far in the other direction. A whitepaper released by the U.S. House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Technology last October alluded to the dangers over-regulating can pose to AI innovations.
Robert Silvers, a co-chair of the artificial intelligence practice at Paul Hastings, doesn't think that the standards pose that risk.
“I think that this is high-level enough where it's not going to stifle innovation,” Silvers said.
As for companies who are just looking for a better grasp on how to best implement AI into their day-to-day work, the standards could provide some relief for them as well. Silvers said he has spoken with a number of general counsel and chief compliance officers who understand the risks that come with AI development, but aren't sure how they should organize their efforts to mitigate those risks.
“I think that will actually give compliance officers and legal teams the courage and confidence to do their work,” Silvers said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Big Law Expected To Follow Milbank's Lead With Associate Year-End Bonuses
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 3Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 4In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 5Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250