Activities of Alexis GEORGOULIS related to 2020/2015(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies
Amendments (10)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely sharedequally shared by all without any discrimination; stresses that, in the long-term, AI may surpass human intellectual capacity; stresses the need therefore to establish safeguards such as human control and verification of AI decision-making;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights the need to ensure the human centric approach of AI development, as a means to observe public interest of its use, especially in areas of biomedical engineering, medicinal advancement and health;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Takes note that the AI systems are software based displaying intelligent behaviour based on an analysis of their environment; highlights that this analysis is based on statistical models of which errors form an inevitable part, sometimes with feedbacks 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 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Highlights the effect that AI may have on cultural creation and artistic expression , where a balance should be stricken offering priority to creators and allowing them to capture the value of their work; emphasises the need to have copyright and computational creativity and clearly distinct, in a transparent manner;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes the appropriate levels of transparency about the public procurement, use, design and basic processing criteria and methods of AI implemented by and for them or by private sectors actors; underlines that the legislative frameworks for intellectual property or trade secrets should not preclude such transparency;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the need for an IP scheme that would ensure full transparency and explainability and would not inhibit full auditing and understanding of their software, because such trade secrecy contributes to the black box effect and would render it impossible to assess bias, contest decisions or remedy errors;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. 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 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Recognises that due to the technological advancement of certain States, there is an underpinning obligation of the EU to promote the sharing of the benefits of AI, utilising a number of tools, including investment in research in all Member States;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6e. Underlines that AI relies heavily on software and data and the current IP system is not equipped to cope with the AI technologies, as software is not patentable;