2020/2012(INL) Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2020/10/19
Lead committee dossier:
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2020/10/19
Progress: Awaiting committee decision
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 47
Legal Basis:
RoP 47Subjects
Events
2020/10/19
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
2020/04/21
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2020/02/19
EP - KANKO Assita (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2020/02/18
EP - GEESE Alexandra (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2020/02/11
EP - GÁLVEZ MUÑOZ Lina (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in EMPL
2020/02/06
EP - JARUBAS Adam (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in ENVI
2020/02/03
EP - KOHUT Łukasz (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in CULT
2020/01/16
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2020/01/16
EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2020/01/15
EP - GARCÍA DEL BLANCO Ibán (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2020/01/15
EP - FLEGO Valter (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in TRAN
2019/11/12
EP - PAET Urmas (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
Amendments | Dossier |
222 |
2020/2012(INL)
2020/04/15
CULT
88 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the creation and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the areas of culture, education and information policy raises and will continue to raise a wide range of ethical issues; calls on the European Institutions to engage in long- term thinking about the impact of AI on our democratic debates, our societies and the very nature of human beings, in order to be able to pave the way for a technology that respects our freedom, our way of life and human rights;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop criteria for the development, the deployment and the use of AI in education, media and the cultural and creative sectors, by developing benchmarks for ethically responsible and accepted uses of AI technologies in these areas; underlines that these criteria must be constantly adjusted to the progress in AI technologies and must aim to promote the ultimate common public good and wellness of the society;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop criteria for the use of AI in education, media and creative sectors, by developing benchmarks for ethically responsible and accepted uses of AI technologies in these areas, including a clear liability regime for products resulting from AI use;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop criteria for the use of AI in education, media, youth and creative sectors, by developing benchmarks for ethically responsible and accepted uses of AI technologies in these areas; underlines that these criteria must be constantly adjusted to the progress in AI technologies in order for the benefits of AI to be accessible to everyone;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop tailor- made criteria for the use of AI in education, media and creative sectors
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop criteria for the use of AI in education, research, security policy, media and creative sectors, by developing benchmarks for ethically responsible and accepted uses of AI technologies in these areas; underlines that these criteria must be constantly adjusted to the progress in AI technologies;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop criteria for the use of AI in education, media and creative sectors, by de
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Notes that every child enjoys the right to public quality education at all levels; therefore, calls for the development, the deployment and the use of quality AI systems that facilitate and provide quality educational tools for all at all levels and stresses that the deployment of new AI systems into schools should not lead to make a wider digital gap in society;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Not
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notices that
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notices that AI personalised learning systems are increasingly being deployed in schools and universities, which is changing the role of teachers in the learning process to one more of facilitation; stresses that this shift should be reflected in curricula, while at the same time pointing out that financial and technological support must be provided for individuals seeking to acquire appropriate skills and also specialised training in information and communications technology;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notices that AI personalised learning systems are increasingly being deployed in schools and universities, which is changing the role of teachers in the learning process
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notices that AI personalised learning systems are increasingly being deployed in schools and universities, which is changing the role of teachers in the learning process to one more of facilitation; stresses that this shift should be reflected in curricula and that the necessary specific training must be provided for professionals in the field of (formal and informal) education and for students;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notices that AI personalised learning systems are increasingly being deployed in schools and universities,
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notices that specialised robotics and AI personalised learning systems are increasingly being deployed in schools and universities, which is changing the
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notices that AI personalised learning systems are increasingly being deployed in schools and universities, which is gradually changing the role of teachers in the learning process to one more of facilitation; stresses that this shift should be assessed throughout and, if necessary, reflected in curricula;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notices that AI personalised learning systems are increasingly being
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Stresses that where machine learning is used in the selection of potential students, adequate safeguards must be implemented, including informing applicants of these procedures and their rights in this regard; notes that the relevant algorithms need to be trained on broad data sets in order to prevent the algorithms from unfairly discriminating against certain groups; is of the view that the relevant decisions taken with the help of automated processes need to be explainable, including, if necessary, to the rejected students;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Calls for an AI, robotics and related technologies strategy at Union level in order to transform and update our educational systems, prepare our educational institutions at all levels and equip teachers and pupils with skills and abilities; considers that the framework on ethics should also provide a set of ethical recommendations in order to help deal with AI, robotics and related technologies in education;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Stresses that children need special protection measures related to the data that might be gathered by AI technologies, and recalls the need to adopt an ethical regulation to ensure an adequate protection level and privacy standards, in particular with regard to their educational path;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Emphasises that teachers have a significant role to play in the educational process and must be familiar with the artificial intelligence systems they will be using for this purpose without, however, sidelining their role and physical presence;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Underlines the importance of using AI, robotics and related technologies in schools and universities thereby enabling them to adopt new, more efficient learning methods that will increase the success rates of pupils and students; underlines the importance of training teachers, pupils and students with the know-how regarding the ethical aspects of AI, robotics and related technologies;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Notes that there is a need to clarify the concept of arts and cultural and creative works, as well as the role of humans as creators and artists, when AI technologies are involved in the creation of the works; stresses the need to clarify the framework of intellectual property rights applicable to AI-generated works;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3 c. Stresses that open and equal access to AI, robotics and related technologies across the Union and within Member States is of utmost importance; considers that the Union support for AI, robotics and related technologies innovation and research should be widely available across the Union; stresses the importance, in this framework, of special support that should be given to tech developers and beneficiaries from disadvantaged and disabilities groups;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges the great potential of AI in the areas of information and media; underlines that, if not regulated, it might have also ethically adverse effects by spreading fake news, creating information bubbles and exploiting biases incorporated into AI algorithms; recalls that a free and complete education is a necessary condition to enable citizens to take full advantage of the fundamental human right referred to in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stipulates that 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontier';
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges the gr
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges the great potential of AI in the areas of information and media; underlines that, if not regulated, it might have also ethically adverse effects by spreading fake news, creating information bubbles and exploiting biases incorporated into AI algorithms;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges the great potential of AI in the areas of information and media; underlines that, if not regulated,
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges the great potential of AI in the areas of information and media; underlines that
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges the great potential of AI in the areas of information and media; underlines that, if not
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the creation and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the areas of culture, education and security and information policy raises and will continue to raise a wide range of ethical issues; stresses that, in connection with AI, the protection of human dignity must always be taken into account;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges the great potential of AI in the areas of information and media; underlines that, if not regulated, it might have also ethically adverse effects by generating and spreading fake news, creating information bubbles and exploiting biases incorporated into AI algorithms;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Considers that the use of certain types of AI, such as facial recognition and behaviour detection systems, may have a damaging effect on the role of media and journalists as watchdogs of democracy; underlines, therefore, that the use of those systems in public spaces should be prohibited;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that med
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises the need to raise awareness and understanding in the general public about the role and impact of AI through formal and non-formal education, including about the use of algorithms and their impact, inter alia, on jobs and privacy; considers that education should empower citizens to develop
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that education should empower citizens to develop new forms of critical thinking, including ‘algorithm awareness’ and the ability to reflect on the impact of AI on information, knowledge, and decision-making; recommends that the Commission promote AI-, robotics- and technology-related formats of education and continuous education;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that education should empower citizens to develop new forms of critical thinking, including ‘algorithm awareness’ and the ability to reflect on the impact of AI on information, knowledge, and decision-making, and give them an understanding of the place occupied by IT systems in selecting, interpreting, storing and representing data;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that education should empower citizens to develop new forms of critical thinking, including ‘algorithm awareness’ and the ability to reflect on the impact of AI on information, knowledge, and decision-making; such qualities are, in any case, required for the study of the humanities and should continue to be cultivated;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that education should empower citizens to develop new forms of critical thinking
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that education should empower citizens to develop new forms of critical thinking, including ‘algorithm awareness’, an understanding of the functioning of AI and its inherent biases, and the ability to reflect on the impact of AI on information, knowledge, and decision-making;
Amendment 5 #
1. Recalls that the
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that special attention must be given to upholding the rights of minors, given the particular influence of education on their future, specifically the right to privacy and access to education, ensuring equal opportunities in every case;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the importance for transparency and accountability of algorithms used by media streaming companies, in order to ensure access to culturally and linguistically diverse content;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the importance for transparency and accountability of algorithms used by media streaming companies, in order to ensure access to culturally and linguistically diverse content; believes that every user should be properly informed when an algorithm is used to recommend content and optimise his or her choices; stresses that such algorithms should be designed in such a way that they do not privilege specific works by limiting their ‘personalised’ suggestions to the most popular works; considers that any user should also be able to disable content recommendation by AI;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the importance for transparency and accountability of algorithms used by media streaming companies, in order to ensure access to culturally and linguistically diverse content; stresses that such algorithms should be designed in such a way that they
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the importance for transparency and accountability of algorithms used by media streaming companies, in order to ensure access to culturally and linguistically diverse content; stresses that such algorithms should be designed in such a way that they do not privilege specific works by limiting their ‘personalised’ suggestions to the most popular works; calls for full transparency on the algorithms used regarding creative sectors; recalls the importance of copyright protection and data protection in ethics;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the importance for transparency and accountability of algorithms used by
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the importance
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the importance for transparency and accountability of algorithms used by media streaming companies, in order to ensure access to culturally and linguistically diverse content; stresses that such algorithms should be designed in such a way that they
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the importance for transparency and accountability of algorithms used by media streaming companies, in order to ensure access to culturally and linguistically diverse content; stresses that such algorithms should be designed in such a way that they do not privilege specific works by limiting their ‘personalised’ suggestions to the most popular works; recalls that transparency of these algorithms is essential in order to avoid potentially negative repercussions of increased concentration of cultural data in the hands of major platforms for continuous media coverage, thereby ensuring access to genuine cultural openness and guaranteeing freedom of creation;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the creation and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the areas of culture, education
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Emphasises that educational institutions should only use AI systems for education purposes that have been audited and certified as ethical, beneficial and acting consistently with human rights principles; reminds that open source software and open technologies are best suited for such purposes;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Insists that user data collected by AI, such as cultural preferences or educational performance, cannot be transmitted or used without the owner's knowledge;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Notes that AI systems developed, deployed and used in the Union need to reflect its cultural diversity and its multilingualism;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that sport has always embraced technological innovation; considers, nevertheless, that the use of AI technologies is increasingly raising questions of fair competition in sport
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the use of AI technologies is increasingly raising questions of fair competition in sport;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the use of AI technologies is spreading rapidly into sports competitions; therefore, it is increasingly raising questions of fair competition in sport; stresses that this area needs a regulatory framework
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the use of AI technologies is increasingly raising questions of fair competition in sport;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the use of AI technologies is increasingly raising questions of fair competition in sport;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Recommends the involvement of the civil society, universities, trade unions and employers associations in the process of drafting a framework on ethics and underlines the important added value of these stakeholders in the drafting of any regulatory framework; stresses the involvement of youth organisations in the process, knowing the impact this technologies will have on their future;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop clear, comprehensive and tailored criteria for the use of AI in education, media
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Emphasises that opportunities provided by digitisation and new technologies, including artificial intelligence, should not lead to negligence in conservation of originals and to the disregard of traditional access to original heritage and traditional forms of promoting culture;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Strongly believes that there is an urgent need to examine how time- honoured human rights frameworks and conventions, as well as the obligations that derive from those commitments, can guide actions and policies relating to digital cooperation and digital technology and how human rights can be meaningfully applied to ensure that no gaps in protection are caused by new and emerging technologies;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Stresses, despite numerous advantages, opportunities and benefits presented by digitisation, new technologies and artificial intelligence, the importance of traditional forms of education and their associated social benefits; encourages Member States to promote, support and preserve traditional forms of education;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. Emphasises the need to continue the fight against fake news and asks the Member States to take measures against the spread of "deepfakes" in audiovisual media;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. Encourages Member States to promote and support citizens’ participation in traditional cultural activities;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 d (new) 7 d. Stresses the importance of retraining workers in industries most affected by the automation of tasks and by AI; stresses that new education programmes should focus on developing skills and on the reskilling of workers so that they can seize job opportunities within the new jobs created by AI; encourages lifelong learning and the development of digital literacy programmes in order to help workers adapt to technological changes;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 d (new) Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 e (new) 7 e. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote cooperation between the public and private sectors and academia in order to reinforce knowledge sharing, and to promote education and training on ethical implications, safety, and respect for fundamental rights, on the use of robotics and artificial intelligence, with a particular focus on human rights, safety and data privacy;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 e (new) 7 e. Emphasises that AI technologies should clearly not reflect on any sort of profiling bias whether regarding identity, race, age, colour, gender or sexuality or disability;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 f (new) 7 f. Recognises the need to ensure that the teams that design, develop, test and maintain, deploy and procure AI systems reflect the diversity of uses and of society in general, and that they are diverse in terms of gender, culture and age in order to mirror all essential elements of society and avoid bias;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop criteria for the use of AI in education, media and creative sectors, by developing benchmarks for ethically responsible and accepted uses of AI technologies in these areas; underlines that these criteria must be constantly adjusted to the progress in AI technologies; recalls that, to provide these algorithms with a sound basis, it is necessary to impose the principles of conformity of a system with its specifications, transparency, good faith and equity;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 g (new) 7 g. Highlights the role that educational systems can play in fostering and developing an ethical mindset by making people aware and informing them about AI and its use, as well as fostering AI literacy across society; underlines that educating the public to ensure proper skills should be viewed as a prerequisite before the widespread use of AI;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 h (new) 7 h. Notes that along with AI technologies, education systems should also provide measures against technology addiction and lack of personal engagement and measures for responsible use by individual users;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 i (new) 7 i. Recognises the threat that automation and AI might pose to employment and reiterates the need to maintain jobs as a priority, including in the cultural and creative sectors;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 j (new) 7 j. Emphasises the need to examine thoroughly, properly regulate and efficiently ban the deployment of AI and the automation in political spaces, which include facial recognition, emotion recognition systems, Internet restrictions and controls to limit and restrict opposition views, controlling distributing access to public and social services, as well as disinformation or fake news, data collection, censorship and automated surveillance;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 k (new) 7 k. Strongly believes that AI could have a detrimental impact on the rule of law, democracy and peoples' right of self- determination with respect to their rights to freely determine their political status and to hold opinions without interference, to exercise the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, to receive, and to impart information and ideas of all kinds;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 l (new) 7 l. Notes that AI systems are software-based displaying intelligent behaviour based on the analysis of their environment; stresses that this analysis is based on statistical models of which errors form an inevitable part , sometimes with feedback loops that replicate, reinforce and prolong pre-existing biases, errors and assumptions; notes the need to ensure that systems and methods are in place to allow verification of the algorithm, explicability of the algorithm and access to remedies;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 m (new) 7 m. Highlights the need to ensure that there are binding regulations laying down the rules for a whole spectrum of activity of AI, regulating all possible aspects and ensuring that principles of transparency , accountability and non-discrimination are preserved;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 n (new) 7 n. Reiterates the 2019 Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI and the seven key requirements for trustworthiness of AI which are (a) human agency and oversight (including fostering informed decision-making that is respectful of the individual ) (b) technical robustness and safety; (c) privacy and data governance; (d) transparency; (e) diversity, non- discrimination, and fairness; (f) societal and environmental well-being; and (g) accountability;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 o (new) 7 o. Recognises that AI and automation will have an effect on the globalised economy which might be detrimental by entrenching existing inequalities and prompting regulatory arbitrage;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the need to develop criteria for the use of AI in education, media and creative sectors, by developing benchmarks for ethically responsible and accepted uses of AI technologies in these areas;
source: 650.405
2020/05/11
AFET
134 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the United Nations Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of freedom, of democracy, of equality and of the rule of law; highlights that all defence- related efforts within the Union framework respect these universal values whilst promoting peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world; recognises that the primary guarantor of Euro-Atlantic security is NATO and that decision making related to AI regulations must be made in close cooperation with Member States, the North Atlantic Council and likeminded partners as the U.S., U.K. Canada or Japan; Is of the opinion that the use of AI should be based on common set of ethical principles: responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable, and governable;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; calls on the Union
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines that the Union must promote understanding the military implications of AI, of robotics and of autonomy; considers that the Union needs to promote the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge on technology development processes and operational methods throughout the supply chain and over the full lifecycle of AI-enabled military capabilities, in order to further strengthen Member States' technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy in this domain;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines that the Union must promote a better understanding of the military implications, advantages and opportunities of AI, of robotics and of autonomy, including the potential for the European defence industry; considers that the Union needs to promote the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge on technology development processes and operational methods throughout the supply chain and over the full lifecycle of AI- enabled military capabilities;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines that the Union must promote understanding the military implications of AI, of robotics and of autonomy by working alongside military officials; considers that the Union needs to promote the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge on technology development processes and operational methods throughout the supply chain and over the full lifecycle of AI-enabled
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines that the Union must promote understanding of the military implications of AI, of robotics and of autonomy; considers that the Union needs to promote the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge on technology development processes and operational methods throughout the supply chain and over the full lifecycle of AI-enabled military capabilities;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Suggests that special attention should be paid to the technological advancement, development and deployment of drones in military operations; urges the Commission to create a code of conduct on using drone for military operations considering the potential damage they can inflict on critical infrastructures and civilians; stresses that the aforementioned code of conduct should be respected by all third countries which have economic and diplomatic ties with the Union;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Believes that enhanced cooperation between Member States and the Commission is necessary to guarantee coherent cross-border rules in the Union to encourage the collaboration between European industries and allow the development and deployment of AI- enabled technologies consistent with the prescribed safety and security standards, and the ethical framework governing the development and deployment of AI technology;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Recognises in the hybrid and advanced warfare context of today, the volume and velocity of information during the early phases of a crisis might be overwhelming for human analysts and that an AI system could process the information to ensure that human decision-makers are tracking the full spectrum of information within an appropriate time frame for a speedy response;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the EU to institutionalise a dialogue between policy makers, developers and users of AI technology on the ethical and legal limits of AI and to inform the public at large about the advantages, the risks and the challenges posed by AI at a practical and ethical level;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Underlines, that despite its added value, AI comes with a number of weaknesses, one of them relating to all sorts of different types of biases; emphasises that AI technologies should clearly be void of any sort of profiling, especially regarding gender;
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Stresses the utmost importance of education and ethics-based training in the field of security and defence AI technologies with particular focus on ethics of semi-autonomous and autonomous operational systems based on human accountability;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; calls on the Union
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Expresses concern about the risk of creating digital echo chambers in which people only receive information corresponding to their opinions; in this regard, expresses concern about the risk of increasing extremism and the fuelling of terrorism;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Stresses the need for a coordinated and cautious framework on the exporting of security and defence-related AI- enabled systems, products and technology to third countries; highlights the potential risks pertaining to the exporting of AI- enabled systems, products and technology to countries with authoritarian regimes or otherwise opaque systems of governance which may lead to the uncontrollable or unintended use of such applications against citizens and/or the Union; calls on the Commission to create an EU body or agency on AI tasked with the oversight, evaluation and coordination of Member States’ export activities of AI-enabled systems, products and technology in the field on security and defence to third countries;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Stresses that quantum computing could represent the most revolutionary change in conflict since the advent of atomic weaponry and thus urges that the advancement of quantum computing technologies be a priority for the Union and Member States; recognises that acts of aggression, including attacks on critical infrastructure, aided by quantum computing will create a conflict environment in which the time to make decisions will be compressed dramatically from days and hours to minutes and seconds, forcing Member States to develop capabilities that protect themselves and train both its decision makers and military personnel to respond effectively within such timeframes;
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Underlines the importance to invest in the development of human capital for artificial intelligence, fostering the necessary skills and education in an AI-enabled world; stresses in particular the importance to ensure the proper skills and training of ethicists in this field;
Amendment 114 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to overcome the current fragmentation within the Union as regards national AI-related law, research, innovation and expertise in the area of AI, which
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to overcome the current fragmentation within the Union as regards national AI-related law, research, innovation and expertise in the area of AI,
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to overcome the current fragmentation within the Union as regards national AI-related law, research, innovation and expertise in the area of AI, which puts in jeopardy the internal market and the objective to ensure trustworthy and secure development of AI in Europe; in this respect welcomes the inclusion of AI- related projects under the European Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); believes that the future European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) also offer well adapted frameworks for future AI- related projects that would help to better streamline Union efforts in this field, and promote at the same time the EU’s objective to strengthen human rights, international law, and multilateral solutions;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Stresses the need to overcome the current fragmentation within the Union as regards national AI-related law, research, innovation and expertise in the area of AI, which puts in jeopardy the internal market and the objective to ensure trustworthy and secure development of AI in Europe; in this respect welcomes the inclusion of AI- related projects under the European Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); believes that the future European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) also offer well adapted frameworks for future AI- related projects that would help to better streamline Union efforts in this field, in order to strengthen Member States' technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy in this domain;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Highlights that the European Union needs to strive for strategic resilience so that it is never again found unprepared in times of crisis, and underlines that especially in what artificial intelligence and its application to defence and security is concerned this is of crucial significance; emphasises that supply-chains for AI systems in defence and security that can lead to technological dependence should be recalibrated and such dependencies should be phased-out; calls for increased investment in European AI for defence and in the critical infrastructure that sustains it;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Emphasises that the development of AI that respects fundamental rights and supports the public interest requires the strategic pooling and sharing of data in the EU between private and public entities, as well as the strengthening of an EU AI ecosystem, which involves public, private, and civil society stakeholders; calls on the European Commission to foster dialogue among Member States, researchers, academics, civil society actors and the private sector so as to have inclusive policymaking processes when it comes to defence-related AI regulations;
Amendment 122 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Highlights that, in the context of the widespread disinformation war, particularly driven by non-European actors, there is an increased need for the EU to continue investment in research, analysis, innovation and cross-border and cross-sector knowledge transfer in order to develop AI so that it could effectively contribute to combating fake news and disinformation, while at the same time respecting data privacy and the European legal framework;
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Rejects the efforts within European Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) and the envisioned Defence Fund (EDF) to promote research & development of autonomous weapons and disruptive military technologies; calls for an end to EU research in this field; demands the immediate termination of all calls with military AI implications like the call EDIDP-AI-2020 (Defence technologies supported by artificial intelligence);
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Notes that since the bulk of AI research and development is happening in the private sector, it will be necessary to establish a closer cooperation with leading companies and enterprises in order to harness the potential of AI to the fullest, while fostering a better understanding of risks and benefits as well as ensuring maximum operational security;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Stresses that the EU promotes a global and comprehensive discussion on AI military applications and relevant regulatory aspects with NATO, with particular regard to interoperability in the European defence, in order to include AI into the common actions that form part of the Joint Declarations;
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the Commission to present their "Reinforcement of the Skills Agenda", announced in the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence on the 19th February2020, as soon as possible - in order to ensure that everyone in Europe can benefit from the digital transformations of the EU economy;
Amendment 127 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the European Commission to establish a Working Group on Security and Defence within the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence that should specifically deal with policy and investment questions as well as ethical aspects of AI in the field of security and defence;
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) Amendment 129 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Stresses the importance of the creation of an ethical code of conduct underpinning the deployment of weaponised AI-enabled systems in military operations, similar to the existing regulatory framework prohibiting the deployment of chemical and biological weapons; is of the opinion that the Commission should initiate the creation of standards on the use of AI-enabled weapons systems in warfare according to international humanitarian law;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recognises that unlike defence industrial bases, critical AI innovations could come from small Member States, thus a CSDP-standardized approach should ensure that smaller Member States and SME’s are not crowded out. Stresses that a set of common EU AI capabilities matched to a Member States operating concepts can bridge the technical gaps that could leave out states lacking the relevant technology, industry expertise or the ability to implement AI systems in their defence ministries;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Stresses that, as a global actor, the European Union should pursue the international adoption of its ethical and technical standards in AI-powered defence systems; considers that the Union should engage in AI diplomacy in international fora with likeminded partners like the G7, the G20,and the OECD;
Amendment 131 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 c (new) 11c. Calls for increased cooperation within the NATO Alliance for the establishment of common standards and interoperability of AI systems in defence; stresses that the transatlantic relationship is crucial in preserving shared values and in countering future and emerging threats;
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12.
Amendment 133 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the European Commission and on the VP/HR to present, also as part of an overall approach, a sectoral AI strategy for defence-related activities within the Union framework, that ensures both respect for citizens’ rights and EU’s strategic interests that should propose a consistent regulatory approach spanning from the inception of AI-enabled systems to their military uses; calls on these regulatory efforts to be supported by meaningful monitoring schemes, so that normative frameworks are not outplaced by technological development and new methods of warfare; calls on the Council, the European Commission and on the VP/HR to enter in a structured dialogue with the European Parliament to that end.
Amendment 134 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the European Commission and on the VP/HR to present, also as part of an overall approach, a sectoral AI strategy for defence-related activities within the Union framework, that should propose a consistent
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises that the geographical scope of such a framework should cover all the components of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union, including in cases where part of the technologies might be located outside the Union or not have a specific location;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Underlines the need of constant monitoring of the use of AI; especially from the point of view of its advantages and disadvantages, as well as, its impact on the protection of Universal Human Rights;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Recalls that the impact of AI systems should be considered not only from an individual perspective but also from the perspective of a society as a whole; calls to fully incorporate in a new framework, the human-centric approach based on the Communication on Building Trust in Human-Centric AI and the input obtained in the Ethics Guidelines prepared by the High-Level Expert Group on AI;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that current and future defence-related activities within the Union framework will draw on AI, on robotics and autonomy, and on related technologies and that the Union must assume a leading role in research and development of AI systems in the defence field in order to achieve technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy; believes that the use of AI-enabled applications in defence could offer a number of direct benefits to the commander such as higher quality collected data, greater situational awareness, increased speed for decision- making, as well as greater reliability of military equipment and hence reduced human risk and human casualties; recalls that AI systems are also becoming key elements in countering emerging security threats such as cyber and hybrid warfare;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that current and future defence-related activities within the Union framework will draw on AI, on robotics and autonomy, and on related technologies and that the Union must assume leading role in research and development of AI systems in defence field; believes that the use of AI-enabled applications in defence offer number of direct benefits such as higher quality collected data, greater situational awareness, increased speed for decision-making, as well as greater reliability of military equipment; recalls that AI systems are also becoming key elements in countering emerging security threats both in the online and offline spheres; notes, however, that AI could be exposed to forms of dangerous malign manipulation in unpredictable ways and with incalculable consequences;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that current and future defence-related activities within the Union framework will draw on AI, on robotics and autonomy, and on related technologies and that the Union must assume leading role in research and development of AI systems in defence field; believes that the use of AI-enabled applications in defence
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that current and future defence-related activities within the Union framework will draw on AI, on robotics and autonomy, and on related technologies and that the Union must assume leading role in research and development of AI systems in defence field; believes that the use of AI-enabled applications in defence offer number of direct benefits such as higher quality collected data, greater situational awareness, increased speed for decision-making, reduced risk of collateral damage thanks to better cabling, protection of forces on the ground, as well as greater reliability of military equipment; recalls that AI systems are also becoming key elements in countering emerging security threats;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that current and future security and defence-related activities within the Union framework will draw on AI, on robotics and autonomy, and on related technologies and that the Union must assume leading role in research and development of AI systems in security and defence field; believes that the use of AI- enabled applications in security and defence offer number of direct benefits such as higher quality collected data, greater situational awareness, increased speed for decision-making, as well as greater reliability of military equipment; recalls that AI systems are also becoming key elements in countering emerging and hybrid security threats;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls for establishing of synergies and networks between the various European research centres on AI as well as other multilateral fora, such as: Council of Europe, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD),the World Trade Organisation and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), in order to align their efforts and to better coordinate the developments of the AI technology;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Is concerned that the research & development of disruptive military technologies and autonomous weapons play a more and more dominant role in the Unions security policy; is convinced that even partially autonomous systems still force the opponent to further automate its own systems and will lead to a further uncontrollable arms race, which inevitably leads to the introduction of killer robots at the end;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines at the same time all the risks and challenges of unregulated use of AI; strongly believes technological advances in the field have to go hand in hand with an ample discussion on the ethical aspects of the use of AI and its impacts on societies and communities, including in the field of security and defence;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that AI technologies are, in essence, dual use; highlights that AI in defence-related activities is a transverse disruptive technology whose development may provide opportunities for the competitiveness and the strategic autonomy of the EU;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Highlights the importance of exploring and developing synergies between civilian and military AI research and applications, particularly from a total defence perspective;
Amendment 29 #
3a. Stresses that AI technologies are of dual use: the development of AI in defence-related activities benefits from exchanges between military and civil technologies;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the United Nations Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of human dignity, of freedom, of democracy, of equality and of the rule of law; highlights that all defence-
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Is of the opinion that reliable, robust and trustworthy AI is a foundational requirement for modern and effective military of XXI century;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Calls for a total ban on all autonomous weapons systems, regardless of the degree of automation, enshrined in international law, for example in the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) or in a newly drafted convention banning these weapons; further calls for an end to all research into the gradual automation of weapons systems;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Considers, while ethical and moral considerations must be examined while developing artificial intelligence, it is important to highlight and communicate the economic and societal benefits that could be generated by AI;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Union follows a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer; calls on Member States to combine the analytical efforts of CSDP, NATO and individual command structures to ascertain how, and when, a scenario will develop; such machine-learning crisis simulation systems could offer improved visibility into the causes and drivers of a crisis that might otherwise be overlooked by conventional analysis, which can be too narrow to capture the true complexity of a situation;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach,
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Union follows a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer; welcomes and supports the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence ‘Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI’ published on 9 April 2019 and its position on lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS);
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Union follows a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer as well as realizing that AI enabled systems will be a key element in future defence-developments and defensive capabilities;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Union follows a path of responsibility and transparency, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the United Nations Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of freedom, of democracy, of equality and of the rule of law; highlights that all defence- related efforts within the Union framework must respect these universal values whilst promoting peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Union follows a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens and their data, and of defending our values, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Union follows a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, whilst fully seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Member States and the European Commission to ensure that the algorithms used in defence systems, while keeping the necessary confidentiality, are governed by the principle of transparency, including a clear liability regime for the results of AI use; underlines that these algorithms must be constantly adjusted to the progress in AI technologies;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that not all members of the international community will follow the regulatory human-centric approach devised by the Union and that authoritarian states will devise a counter framework that will pursue, at the expense of Member States, to deliver military advantages and superiority within the AI domain;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Urges Member States to track and assess the development of AI technologies, particularly military and surveillance, within authoritarian states that avoid compliance with EU led regulations, to avoid a scenario in which our societies, militaries and institutions, fall vulnerable to hybrid warfare;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes for their use, for understanding the related ethical aspects and for fostering an effective international regulatory framework that contains the inherent risks of these technologies and prevents use for malicious purposes; those include in particular unintended harm to persons, be it
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes for their use, for understanding the related ethical aspects and for fostering an effective international regulatory framework that contains the inherent risks of these technologies and prevents use for malicious purposes; the Union working together with the Member States must determine the appropriate liability regimes applicable to innovations in AI and other immersive technologies in the field of security and defence thus establishing a legal basis for accountability and traceability mechanisms, those include in particular unintended harm to persons, be it material or immaterial, such as breach of fundamental rights;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes for their use, for understanding the related ethical aspects and for fostering an effective international regulatory framework that contains the inherent risks of these technologies and prevents use for malicious purposes; those include in particular unintended harm to persons, be it material or immaterial, such as breach of fundamental rights; urges the VP/HR, the Member States and the Council to initiate multilateral negotiations on a legally binding instrument regulating LAWS, with an effective enforcement mechanisms; regrets the failure to agree on such regulation at the Convention on Conventional Weapons;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Underlines the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence, already having an impact on our world in many different ways; artificial intelligence has the potential to become the engine of productivity and economic growth; it has the ability to increase the efficiency with which things are done and improve the decision-making process by analysing large amounts of data; emphasizing in the same time the need to maintain at all times the responsible human monitoring and control in relation to artificial intelligence systems;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes for their use, for understanding the related ethical aspects and for fostering an effective international regulatory framework that consults with military, industry, law enforcement, academia and civil society stakeholders to ensure that any framework contains the inherent risks and advantages of these technologies and prevents use for malicious purposes; those include in particular unintended harm to persons, be it material or immaterial, such as breach of fundamental rights;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines that the Union, in connection with the work carried out by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’ Governmental Expert Group, must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes for their use, for understanding the related ethical aspects and for fostering an effective international regulatory framework that contains the inherent risks of these technologies and prevents use for malicious purposes; those include in particular unintended harm to persons, be it material or immaterial, such as breach of fundamental rights;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Underlines that in an era of decentralised innovation and software- driven warfare, accessible data provides strategic advantage, making AI particularly significant when combined with virtual- and augmented-reality visualisation, allowing it to play a significant role in providing advanced training and pre-deployment unit-level preparation for EU or NATO-led forces during peacetime, to ensure a rapid yet smooth transition into conducting operations; encourages therefore the development of European data, generated within the European Union’s borders, in particular with a view to developing industrial technology using machine- generated data;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the EU to work towards achieving convergence with like-minded third countries in the field pertaining the ethic of AI as well as to keep contributing in multilateral fora to build a consensus on a human-centric AI, with the goal of fostering an international regulatory framework putting a human-centric approach at its core;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Highlights that, while international discussions have largely centred on the potential development of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), ethical aspects of other application fields for AI in the defence sector such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) or cyber operations must not be overlooked;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Endorses the key principle “ethics- by-design”, by which ethical principles are embedded into AI products and services from the outset of the design process;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with the highest possible
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with the highest possible trustworthiness standards as regards the collection and exploitation of operational data; whereas any given LAWS could malfunction on account of badly written code or a cyber- attack perpetrated by an enemy state or a non-state actor; calls on Member States to clearly define and communicate the expected economic, diplomatic and military consequences third actors engaging in cyber-attacks against European weapons with a high degree of autonomy will face; believes that the expected reaction must be credible and severe enough to prevent such actions cause by hostile states and other actors;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Welcomes the endorsement, by the 2019 Meeting of High Contracting Parties to the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), of 11 Guiding Principles for the development and use of autonomous weapons systems;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that most of current military powers worldwide have already engaged in significant R&D efforts related to the military dimension of AI; considers that the EU must see to it that it does not lag behind in this regard; Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with the highest possible trustworthiness standards as regards the collection and exploitation of operational data;
Amendment 61 #
6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against vulnerabilities that can exploited by external attacks, cyber- attacks and digital influence targeting the data, the model or the underlying infrastructure, both software and hardware, as well as their compliance with the highest possible trustworthiness standards as regards the collection and exploitation of operational data throughout a system’s entire lifecycle;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards, according to the principle of "Security by Design", to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with the highest possible trustworthiness standards as regards the collection, storage and exploitation of operational data;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that defence applications of AI during operations means that autonomous software in compliance with future EU regulations, can be used to assist with maintenance, logistics management, and targeting of offensive and defensive systems; this could serve to ensure that a CSDP force is successfully integrated with autonomous, unmanned ground, air and sea vehicles to provide a standardised level of operational competence and consistency of execution;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Notices the great risk of AI in the area of disinformation; underlines that, if not regulated, AI technologies might have ethically adverse effects by exploiting bias in data and algorithms that may lead to disinformation, creating information bubbles and exploiting biases incorporated into AI algorithms;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to work together in establishing a framework to prohibit the activation of AI-enabled systems in the field of security and defence using advanced data to carry out lethal or destructive actions without a human-in- the-loop-principle;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Highlights the need to adopt clear reliability, safety and security provisions and
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Highlights the need to adopt clear safety and security provisions and requirements, with proper certifications, for AI-systems in defence, and carry ou
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Highlights the need to adopt clear safety and security provisions and requirements for AI-systems in security and defence, and carry our regular tests and verifications across the entire life cycle; underlines the necessity of ensuring compliance with applicable standards and obtained certifications where AI modifies e.g. through machine learning the functionality and behaviour of systems in which it is integrated, in order to ensure full traceability, explicability and accountability of decisions made with involvement of AI;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; stresses that the EU should play a global role in leading the way towards a credible and binding AI regulatory agenda rooted in democratic values; calls on the Union to assess the inherent AI-related risks with regard to the application of Union law, and foresee necessary adjustment and enforcement where needed; underlines that emerging technologies not covered by international law should be judged by the principle of humanity and the dictates of public conscience; underlines that the ethics of AI-enabled systems in defence must be assessed from the point of view of Human rights, and notably human safety, health and security, freedom, privacy, integrity and dignity;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission to embed cybersecurity capacity-building in its industrial policy in order to ensure the development and deployment of safe, resilient and robust AI-enabled and robotic systems; calls on the Commission to explore the use of blockchain-based cybersecurity protocols and applications to improve the resilience, trust and robustness of AI infrastructures through disintermediated models of data encryption; encourages European stakeholders to research and engineer advanced features that would facilitate the detection of corrupt and malicious AI- enabled &robotics systems which could undermine the security of the Union and of citizens;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that a digitally shared view of an operational environment, can be developed in seconds to aid overloaded human analysts, and that data sources can be expanded beyond conventional defence-related sources to include open- source and commercially available imagery, metadata, and social media, providing decision makers with a full ‘operating picture’ of a combat or crisis environment;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Highlights the fact that AI framework in defence and security should develop benchmarks for ethically responsible and accepted uses of AI technologies; underlines that these criteria must be constantly adjusted to the progress in AI technologies;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Underlines that AI learning techniques can pose various risks from an ethical point of view, for example, if the underlying data is biased due to ethnically biased population data or the deliberate alteration of learning data by a third party;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Emphasises the need for an embedded option to reduce an AI-enabled system’s computations to a form comprehensible by humans throughout a given system’s lifecycle; considers that AI-enabled systems, products and technology purposed for military use should be equipped with a ‘black box’ to record every data transaction carried out by the machine, including the logic that contributed to its decisions, as well as with a 'switch-off' button which would instantly enable humans to deactivate the AI-enabled system;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Highlights the fact that European legislation must be flexible and apply to any future technological advancements, and hence must prevent legal loopholes or grey zones as it was sometimes the case in the past;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stressed that all AI-systems in defence must have a concrete and well- defined domain of use and must be endowed with the ability to detect and disengage or d
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stressed that all AI-systems in defence must have a concrete and well- defined domain of use and must be endowed with the ability to detect and disengage or d
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stressed that all AI-systems in defence must have a concrete and well- defined domain of use and must be endowed with the ability to detect and disengage or d
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stressed that all AI-systems in defence must have a concrete and well- defined
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence, both in combat and noncombat situations, must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; calls on the Union to assess the inherent AI-related risks with regard to the application of Union law, and
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stressed that all AI-systems in defence must have a concrete and well- defined domain of use and must be endowed with the ability to detect and disengage or d
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresse
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Highlights the importance of ensuring that AI-enabled systems, weapons, products and technology that are produced in the Union have advanced software security provisions in accordance with the "safety by design approach" which would render it difficult to hack or interfere with by foreign stakeholders or malicious groups, and allow for specific human oversight before operating such systems compromised by unknown sources;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses, especially in security and defence domains, the importance of human oversight over AI, which can be achieved through a human-in-command approach, meaning the capability by human operators to oversee the overall activity of the AI system and the ability to decide when and how to use the system in any particular situation, including the ability to override a decision made by the system at any time;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Recalls its previous positions on lethal autonomous weapon systems and calls once again for the urgent development and adoption of a common position on lethal autonomous weapon systems, for an international ban on the development, production and use of lethal autonomous weapon systems enabling strikes to be carried out without meaningful human control, and for a start to effective negotiations for their prohibition;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design,
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators and the human-in- the-loop and human-on-the-loop principles must also be applied to the command and control of AI-enabled systems depending on the nature of the system and of the mission at hand and without compromising the efficiency of the application; stresses that AI-enabled systems must allow the military leadership to assume its full responsibility and exercise the necessary level of judgment for taking lethal or large-scale destructive action be means of such systems;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators and the human-in- the-loop principle must also be applied to
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; the framework must therefore indicate the likeliness of errors and inaccuracies to deployers for the deployment of AI technology; calls on the Union to assess the inherent AI-related risks with regard to the application of Union law, and foresee necessary adjustment and enforcement where needed;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators and the human-in- the-loop, human-on-the-loop and human- in-command principles must also be applied to the command and control of AI- enabled systems especially when it comes to conflicts of objectives; stresses that AI- enabled systems must allow the military leadership to assume its full responsibility and exercise the necessary level of judgment for taking lethal or large-scale destructive action b
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators and the human
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators and the human-in- the-loop and human-in-command principles must also be applied to the command and control of AI-enabled systems; stresses that AI-enabled systems must allow the military leadership to assume its full responsibility and exercise the necessary level of judgment for taking lethal or large-scale destructive action be means of such systems;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that the entire responsibility and accountability for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators and the human-in-
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Stresses that the EU must take the lead in promoting the establishment of international norms regarding the ethical and legal parameters of the development and use of fully autonomous, semi- autonomous and remotely operated lethal weapons systems; Member States should develop national strategies for the definition, status and use of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) towards a comprehensive strategy on the EU level;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Stresses that in tactical scenarios, AI techniques such as reinforcement learning, which allows machines to share their experiences and optimal solutions among themselves, have proven to be a critical asset in military campaigns, leading to the evolution of a highly optimised, robust mission intelligence that is effective at fulfilling objectives set by military command;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Stresses the importance of putting in place mechanism to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes, including the setup of governance frameworks ensuring accountability for the ethical dimensions of decisions associated with the development, deployment and use of AI;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Welcomes the agreement of Council and Parliament to exclude lethal autonomous weapons ‘without the possibility for meaningful human control over the selection and engagement decisions when carrying out strikes’ from actions funded under the European Defence Fund;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Calls on the Commission to work together with Member States’ national competent authorities and other stakeholders participating in the development and deployment of AI- enabled systems, products and technologies to establish a safe, secure and resilient framework whereby the source code of AI-enabled systems is shared, monitored and verified to mitigate potential deviations from the governing principles and ethical framework underpinning AI technology in the field of security and defence; suggests to the Commission that the EU must retain ownership of the intellectual property of EU-funded research on AI-enabled systems, products and technologies in security and defence;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines that the Union must promote understanding the military implications of AI, of robotics and of autonomy; considers that the Union needs to promote the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge on technology development processes and operational methods throughout the supply chain and over the full lifecycle of AI-enabled military capabilities; underlines the urgent need for establishing increased European strategic and technological independence in the field of AI enabled systems, including the critical infrastructure it relies on;
source: 650.709
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2020-05-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
2020-05-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
2020-05-07Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/0/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.508
|
2020-04-30Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
forecasts/0/date |
Old
2020-09-14T00:00:00New
2020-10-19T00:00:00 |
2020-04-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
forecasts |
|
2020-04-27Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs |
|
2020-04-20Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
2020-03-05Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
2020-02-21Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
committees/4/rapporteur |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/7 |
|
2020-02-18Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows |
|
2020-02-11Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/2/rapporteur |
|
2020-02-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/3/rapporteur |
|
2020-02-05Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/3 |
|
2020-02-04Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
committees/5 |
|
committees/5 |
|
2020-01-29Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/7/opinion |
False
|
2020-01-27Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/6/rapporteur |
|
2020-01-22Show (1) Changes
committees/5/rapporteur |
|