Activities of Kris PEETERS related to 2020/2012(INL)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION with recommendations to the Commission on the framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies
Amendments (11)
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the importance of developing an “ethics-by-default and by design” framework which fully respects the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Union law and the Treaties; calls, in this regard, for a clear and coherent governance model that allows companies to further develop artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Expects the Commission to integrate a strong ethical framework into the forthcoming legislative proposal as a follow up to the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence, including on safety, liability, fundamental rights and data protection, which maximises the opportunities and minimises the risks of AI technologies;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the commission to consider developing a framework of criteria and indicators to label AI technology, in which developers could participate voluntarily, in order to stimulate comprehensibility, transparency, accountability and incentivise additional precautions by developers;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is of the opinion that effective cross- border cooperation and ethical standards can be achieved only if all stakeholders seekcommit to ensure human agency and oversight, and respect the established principles oftechnical robustness and safety, privacy and data governance, transparency, non-discrimination, social and environmental wellbeing, and accountability;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Warns that possible bias in artificial intelligence applications could lead to automated discrimination, which has to be avoided by design and application rules;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a horizontal and future- oriented approach, including technology- neutral standards that apply to all sectors in which AI could be employed, complemented by a vertical approach with sector-specific standards were appropriate; strongly believes that an ethical framework should apply to anyone intending to develop or operate artificial intelligence applications in the EU; favours a binding EU-wide approach to avoid fragmentation; calls on the Union to promote strong and transparent cooperation and knowledge-sharing between the public and private sectors to create best practices;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that the protection of networks of interconnected AI and robotics must prevent security breaches, data leaks, data poisoning, cyber- attacks and the misuse of personal data; believes this will require a stronger cooperation between national and EU authorities;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that AI and, robotics and related technologyies in the area of law enforcement and border control could enhance public safety and security; stresses that its use must respect the principles of proportionality and necessity; , yet also bear significant ethical risks that must be adequately addressed; stresses, therefore, that its use must respect the principles of proportionality and necessity and guarantee the respect of fundamental rights; supports the aim for maximum transparency, both with regards to the risk assessment of individual applications, as well as a general overview of the use of AI, robotics and related technologies in the area of law enforcement and border control; believes that EU agencies, especially in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, should be properly funded to research the effectiveness of such measures and should be equipped with the latest technologies;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that AI and robotic technology in the area of law enforcement and border control could enhance public safety and security; stresses that its use must respect the principles of proportionality and necessity; considers that it should be possible for EU agencies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs to be equipped with the latest AI and robotic technologies, especially for the purposes of law enforcement and border control, and that this should be taken into account in the yearly budgets for the JHA agencies throughout the next MFF period (2021-2027);
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that AI and robotics are not immune from making mistakes; emphasises the importance of the right to an explanation when persons are subjected to algorithmic decision-making; considers the need for legislators to reflect upon the complex issue of liability in the context of criminal justice.
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that AI and robotics are not immune from making mistakes; considers the need for legislators to reflect upon the complex issue of liability in the context of criminal justice.