Artificial intelligence (AI) now permeates critical infrastructures and decisionmaking systems where failures produce social, economic, and democratic harm. This position paper challenges the entrenched belief that regulation and innovation are opposites. As evidenced by analogies from aviation, pharmaceuticals, and welfare systems and recent cases of synthetic misinformation, bias and unaccountable decision-making, the absence of well-designed regulation has already created immeasurable damage. Regulation, when thoughtful and adaptive, is not a brake on innovation--it is its foundation. The present position paper examines the EU AIAct as a model of risk-based, responsibility-driven regulation that addresses the Collingridge Dilemma: acting early enough to prevent harm, yet flexibly enough to sustain innovation. Its adaptive mechanisms--regulatory sandboxes, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) support, real-world testing, fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA)--demonstrate how regulation can accelerate responsibly, rather than delay, technological progress. The position paper summarises how governance tools transform perceived burdens into tangible advantages: legal certainty, consumer trust, and ethical competitiveness.

Artificial intelligence (AI) now permeates critical infrastructures and decisionmaking systems where failures produce social, economic, and democratic harm. This position paper challenges the entrenched belief that regulation and innovation are opposites. As evidenced by analogies from aviation, pharmaceuticals, and welfare systems and recent cases of synthetic misinformation, bias and unaccountable decision-making, the absence of well-designed regulation has already created immeasurable damage. Regulation, when thoughtful and adaptive, is not a brake on innovation--it is its foundation. The present position paper examines the EU AI Act as a model of risk-based, responsibility-driven regulation that addresses the Collingridge Dilemma: acting early enough to prevent harm, yet flexibly enough to sustain innovation. Its adaptive mechanisms--regulatory sandboxes, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) support, real-world testing, fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA)--demonstrate how regulation can accelerate responsibly, rather than delay, technological progress. The position paper summarises how governance tools transform perceived burdens into tangible advantages: legal certainty, consumer trust, and ethical competitiveness.

Transitioning to sustainable and resilient energy systems requires navigating complex and interdependent trade-offs across environmental, social, and resource dimensions. Neglecting these trade-offs can lead to unintended consequences across sectors. However, existing assessments often evaluate emerging energy pathways and their impacts in silos, overlooking critical interactions such as regional resource competition and cumulative impacts. We present an integrated modeling framework that couples agent-based modeling and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to simulate how energy transition pathways interact with regional resource competition, ecological constraints, and community-level burdens. We apply the model to a case study in Southern California. The results demonstrate how integrated and multiscale decision making can shape energy pathway deployment and reveal spatially explicit trade-offs under scenario-driven constraints. This modeling framework can further support more adaptive and resilient energy transition planning on spatial and institutional scales.

Artificial intelligence (AI) now permeates critical infrastructures and decision-making systems where failures produce social, economic, and democratic harm. This position paper challenges the entrenched belief that regulation and innovation are opposites. As evidenced by analogies from aviation, pharmaceuticals, and welfare systems and recent cases of synthetic misinformation, bias and unaccountable decision-making, the absence of well-designed regulation has already created immeasurable damage. Regulation, when thoughtful and adaptive, is not a brake on innovation -- it is its foundation. The present position paper examines the EU AI Act as a model of risk-based, responsibility-driven regulation that addresses the Collingridge Dilemma: acting early enough to prevent harm, yet flexibly enough to sustain innovation. Its adaptive mechanisms -- regulatory sandboxes, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) support, real-world testing, fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA) -- demonstrate how regulation can accelerate responsibly, rather than delay, technological progress. The position paper summarises how governance tools transform perceived burdens into tangible advantages: legal certainty, consumer trust, and ethical competitiveness. Ultimately, the paper reframes progress: innovation and regulation advance together. By embedding transparency, impact assessments, accountability, and AI literacy into design and deployment, the EU framework defines what responsible innovation truly means -- technological ambition disciplined by democratic values and fundamental rights.

Artists including Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard have thrown their weight behind a campaign against the changes in a series of high-level interventions. The government's commitments will be made in amendments to the data bill, which has become a vehicle for campaigners against the changes and is due to return to the Commons on Wednesday next week. The move has already been dismissed by critics. Ed Newton-Rex, a the British composer and prominent campaigner against the government proposals, said there was a "ton of evidence" showing the mooted changes were "terrible for creators". He added: "We don't need an impact assessment to tell us this."

This chapter critiques the dominant reductionist approach in AI and work studies, which isolates tasks and skills as replaceable components. Instead, it advocates for a systemic perspective that emphasizes the interdependence of tasks, roles, and workplace contexts. Two complementary approaches are proposed: an ethnographic, context-rich method that highlights how AI reconfigures work environments and expertise; and a relational task-based analysis that bridges micro-level work descriptions with macro-level labor trends. The authors argue that effective AI impact assessments must go beyond predicting automation rates to include ethical, well-being, and expertise-related questions. Drawing on empirical case studies, they demonstrate how AI reshapes human-technology relations, professional roles, and tacit knowledge practices. The chapter concludes by calling for a human-centric, holistic framework that guides organizational and policy decisions, balancing technological possibilities with social desirability and sustainability of work.

This paper introduces the HH4AI Methodology, a structured approach to assessing the impact of AI systems on human rights, focusing on compliance with the EU AI Act and addressing technical, ethical, and regulatory challenges. The paper highlights AIs transformative nature, driven by autonomy, data, and goal-oriented design, and how the EU AI Act promotes transparency, accountability, and safety. A key challenge is defining and assessing "high-risk" AI systems across industries, complicated by the lack of universally accepted standards and AIs rapid evolution. To address these challenges, the paper explores the relevance of ISO/IEC and IEEE standards, focusing on risk management, data quality, bias mitigation, and governance. It proposes a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) methodology, a gate-based framework designed to isolate and assess risks through phases including an AI system overview, a human rights checklist, an impact assessment, and a final output phase. A filtering mechanism tailors the assessment to the system's characteristics, targeting areas like accountability, AI literacy, data governance, and transparency. The paper illustrates the FRIA methodology through a fictional case study of an automated healthcare triage service. The structured approach enables systematic filtering, comprehensive risk assessment, and mitigation planning, effectively prioritizing critical risks and providing clear remediation strategies. This promotes better alignment with human rights principles and enhances regulatory compliance.

Planning inspectors recommended against a Hitachi-built nuclear power plant in Anglesey on the basis that it could dilute the island's Welsh language and culture, it has emerged. Hitachi scrapped plans to build a 20bn nuclear power plant at Wylfa in 2020 over cost concerns after failing to reach a funding agreement with UK ministers. Keir Starmer's government has vowed to make it easier to build major infrastructure projects by reforming the planning system and stopping campaigners from launching "excessive" legal challenges. The prime minister unveiled plans for a historic expansion in nuclear power this week, vowing to "push past nimbyism" and make sites across the country available for new power stations. Nuclear industry figures believe that the fate of Hitachi's proposed plant at Wylfa demonstrates the problems with the UK's planning system.

The AI Act introduces the obligation to conduct a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA), with the possibility to reuse a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), and requires the EU Commission to create of an automated tool to support the FRIA process. In this article, we provide our novel exploration of the DPIA and FRIA as information processes to enable the creation of automated tools. We first investigate the information involved in DPIA and FRIA, and then use this to align the two to state where a DPIA can be reused in a FRIA. We then present the FRIA as a 5-step process and discuss the role of an automated tool for each step. Our work provides the necessary foundation for creating and managing information for FRIA and supporting it through an automated tool as required by the AI Act.

The recently published EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is a landmark regulation that regulates the use of AI technologies. One of its novel requirements is the obligation to conduct a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA), where organisations in the role of deployers must assess the risks of their AI system regarding health, safety, and fundamental rights. Another novelty in the AI Act is the requirement to create a questionnaire and an automated tool to support organisations in their FRIA obligations. Such automated tools will require a machine-readable form of information involved within the FRIA process, and additionally also require machine-readable documentation to enable further compliance tools to be created. In this article, we present our novel representation of the FRIA as an ontology based on semantic web standards. Our work builds upon the existing state of the art, notably the Data Privacy Vocabulary (DPV), where similar works have been established to create tools for GDPR's Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA) and other obligations. Through our ontology, we enable the creation and management of FRIA, and the use of automated tool in its various steps.