4 Amendments of Domènec RUIZ DEVESA related to 2020/2015(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely shared; stresses that, in the long-term, AI may surpass human intellectual capacity; stresses the need therefo leaving no one behind; stresses that, as AI is an ever-changing collection of technologies that are being developed at great speed, and as it is constantly gaining the ability to perform more tasks typically related to humans, it shall be required to establish safeguards such as a human centric design which allows for human control and verification of AI decision-making;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the EU should play an essential role in laying down basic principles on the development, programmingdeployment and use of AI, notably in its regulations and codes of conduct, in particular an ethical regulatory framework and a digital data strategy anchored in the respect of fundamental rights and European values;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that AI cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusivelyis constantly gaining the ability to perform more tasks typically related to humans, but that it can alsoy acquireing and developing autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learning; stresses that AI systems can autonomously create and generate cultural and creative works, with only minimum human input, although they are always developed, deployed and used by humans, can autonomously create and generate creative works; notes, moreover, that AI systems can evolve in an unpredictable way, by creating original works unknown to their initial programmers;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to AI-generated cultural and creative works; underlines, in that context, the need to assess whether the notion of the humanart for AI-generated works, and recalls that the human as author and creator ais the basis for the intellectual property rights (IPR) system is still adequate for AI-generated works; considers that automatically assigning the copyright of AI-generated works to the copyright holder of the AI software, algorithm or programme may not be the best way forward as there is a need for a human intervention to be credited for being author of a new creative work;