Published in Law, Innovation and Technology. Published by Taylor & Francis. This AAM (author accepted manuscript/ pre - print) is provided for your own personal use only. It may not be used for resale, reprinting, systematic distribution, emailing, or for any other commercial purpose without the permission of the publisher. Abstract: The lack of explainability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the first obstacles that the industry and regulators must overcome to mitigate the risks associated with the technology . The need for'eXplainable AI' (XAI) is evident in fields where accountability, ethics and fairness are critical, such as healthcare, credit scoring, policing and the criminal justice system. At the EU level, the notion of explainability is one of the fund amental principles that underpin the AI Act, though the exact XAI techn iques and requirements are still to be determined and tested in practice. This paper explores various approaches and techniques that promise to advance XAI, as well as the challenges of implementing the principle of explainability in AI governance and poli cies. Finally, the paper examines the integration of XAI into EU law, emphasising the issues of standard setting, oversight, and enforcement. Jean Monnet Chair and UNESCO Chair, Associate Professor of International and EU Law, NUP Cyprus, Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence AI - 2 - TRACE - CRIME (EU - funded), email: g.pavlidis@nup.ac.cy 1. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a fascinating and influential force in today's technological and business worlds. AI has already started to streamline mundane tasks, advance critical domains of scientific research and disrupt professions and in dustries.

On the whole, the U.S. Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 (US AAA) is a pragmatic approach to balancing the benefits and risks of automated decision systems. Yet there is still room for improvement. This commentary highlights how the US AAA can both inform and learn from the European Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AIA).

These narratives distract from what we call the "pathologies of scale" that become more entrenched every day: large-scale AI models are still largely controlled by Big Tech firms because of the enormous computing and data resources they require, and also present well-documented concerns around discrimination, privacy and security vulnerabilities, and negative environmental impacts. Large-scale AI models like Large Language Models (LLMs) have received the most hype, and fear-mongering, over the past year. "Opinion You Can Have the Blue Pill or the Red Pill, and We're Out of Blue Pills." Greg Noone, "'Foundation models' may be the future of AI. They're also deeply flawed," Tech Monitor, November 11, 2021 (updated February 9, 2023); Dan McQuillan, "We Come to Bury ChatGPT, Not to Praise It," danmcquillan.org,

AI thrives on the processing of large volumes of data to be able to deliver focused and targeted solutions. Last year in April, the European Commission (EC) unveiled a legal framework for AI, the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), the first of its kind. The AI Act aims to implement an ecosystem of trust by proposing a legal framework within which people use AI-based solutions while encouraging businesses to develop them. When it comes to technology, Europe has made no secret of its desire to export its values across the world, at least at a principle level. Similar to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has become the conventional norm, the AI Act could also become a global precedent, determining to what extent AI may seep into our general day-to-day functioning, or whether it will be limited to automated use by larger entities only.

The Commission proposes the first regulatory framework for AI that addresses the risks of AI and enables Europe to play a leading role globally. The regulatory proposal aims to provide AI developers, deployers, and users with precise requirements and obligations regarding specific applications of AI. At the same time, the proposal seeks to reduce the administrative and financial burden on businesses tiny and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The proposal is part of a broader AI package that includes the updated Coordinated Plan for AI. Together, they ensure people and businesses' safety and fundamental rights while promoting AI uptake, investment, and innovation across the EU.

The European Parliament's Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee, one of the 20 standing committees made up of a number of Members of the European Parliament, recently held a session discussing the EU Artificial Intelligence Act ("AI Act"). Here, we highlight key'thinking points' discussed to give an indication of where the AI Act may change from its current draft. The session was short, so potential answers will be the subject of further debate. For the background on the European Commission's proposed AI Act, see our articles "Artificial intelligence - EU Commission publishes proposed regulations" and "EU Artificial Intelligence Act - what has happened so far and what to expect next". AI has the potential to bring many benefits to users and wider society.

Maintaining artificial intelligence while ensuring data privacy is a challenging feat to do. While artificial intelligence holds a lot of promise, it also raises worries about data misuse and personal privacy breaches. AI must operate in a robust, secure, and safe manner, with risks constantly reviewed and addressed. Organizations that create AI must be accountable for ensuring that these systems operate in accordance with these principles. The EU Artificial intelligence Act has introduced a sophisticated'product safety framework' built around a set of four risk categories.

"Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to systems that display intelligent behavior by analyzing their environment and taking actions – with some …

With the drafting of the "Artificial Intelligence Act" (April 2021), the European Commission has made its first attempt at comprehensively regulating the expansive world of AI. Whilst the draft legislation extensively addresses the regulation and classification of AI technology, it does not mention another area of concern regarding Artificial Intelligence, namely intellectual property rights. Identifying IP rights as a major issue, the EU Parliament adopted a resolution on IP rights for the development of AI technologies in October 2020. In it, the Parliament called upon the Commission to ensure a high level protection of intellectual property rights when regulating AI. Despite the report being forwarded to the Commission well before it finalized its proposal for the "Artificial Intelligence Act", the protection of intellectual property rights is not mentioned in the draft legislation. Merely an Annex published alongside it briefly mentions the challenges of protecting intellectual property rights in connection with AI-assisted outputs.

The European Union is getting back to work after the summer break, and one of the key files on everyone's mind is the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). Over the summer, the European Commission held a consultation on the AIA that received 304 responses, with everyone from the usual Big Tech players down to the Council of European Dentists having their say. Access Now submitted a response to the consultation in August that outlined a number of key issues that need to be addressed in the next stages of the legislative process. If you want to regulate something, you need to define it properly; if not, you're creating problematic loopholes. Unfortunately, the definitions of emotion recognition (Article 3(34)) and biometric categorisation (Article 3(35)) in the current draft of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act are technically flawed.