The government should ensure that its 'pro-innovation' approach to regulating artificial intelligence systems should not diverge from the EU's nascent regulatory regime, the Law Society has said. In its response to a consultation on the government's AI regulation white paper, Chancery Lane also calls attention to the 'urgent need' for explicit regulations about liability across the lifecycle of an AI-based system. 

Concerns about the regulation of AI technology have rocketed up the political agenda since the emergence of so-called large language model systems, such as ChatGPT, which can apparently mimic human intelligence. Last month, the prime minister said he wants Britain to become a global centre for AI under 'safe and secure' rules. Meanwhile the EU is in the process of drawing up an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act designed to ‘ensure that AI developed and used in Europe is fully in line with EU rights and values’.

In its 48-page response to a white paper published in March by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Society calls for a 'nuanced, balanced approach’ to regulation, with a blend of adaptable regulation and firm legislation.   

Areas that require strong regulation include the issue of liability. Meanwhile, current routes for contestability and redress for AI-related 'harms' are not adequate, mainly due to the lack of clear definitions in the current legal framework for terms such as 'meaningful human intervention', the Society states. It recommends that the Law Commission or the government should review crimes and civil offences involving an element of subjective mental state or intention to understand whether any such harm-creating activities should also be applied to AI - and what modifications would be required based on AI's lack of mens rea.

Entities above a certain size or working in high risk areas should be required to appoint an AI officer, it states. Other recommendations cover the need for organisations to be transparent in their use of AI and for decisions made by such systems to be 'interpretable'. 

A particular concern is the government's use of AI-based systems to make life-changing decisions. 'We propose that the government mandates comprehensive AI transparency across government and public services, ensuring that every citizen is aware of when and how decisions affecting them are made or informed by AI systems,' the response states. 

Overall, the response calls on the government to ensure alignment with the EU 'while maintaining the UK’s attractiveness for investment and innovation'. Divergence from EU and US principles-based regimes 'adds complexity for law firms when determining which ethical guidelines apply and in which jurisdictions'.

 

This article is now closed for comment.