7 Amendments of Dominik TARCZYŃSKI related to 2020/2017(INI)
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the Commission has proposed to support public procurement in intelligent digital services, to encourage public authorities to rapidly deploy products and services that rely on AI in areas of public interest and the public sector; emphasises that in the education sector, this deployment should involve educators, learners and wider society and take their needs and the expected benefits into account in order to ensure that AI is used purposefully and ethically and delivers real improvements for those concerned, at an affordable cost to the taxpayer;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to includeexamine whether parts of the education sector should fall in the regulatory framework for high-risk AI applications, given the importance of ensuring that education continues to contribute to the public good and given the high sensitivity of data on pupils, students and other learners; underlinnotes that data sets used to train AI should be reviewed to avoid reinforcing gender stereotypes and othemay contain inherent biases and encourages efforts to mitigate those, while the output of AI applications should be reviewed to avoid unfair biases;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its concern that schools and other public education providers are becoming increasingly dependent on educational technology servmay face a reduced choices, including AI applications, provided by just a few technology companies; stresses that this may lead to unequal access to data and limit competition by restricting consumer choic; encourages public authorities to take an innovative approach towards public procurement, including through partnerships with other public authorities, so as to broaden the range of offers that are made to public education providers across Europe; calls for this data to be shared with the relevant public authorities so it can be used in the development of curricula and pedagogical practices (in particular since these services are purchased with public money or offered to public education providers for free, and because education is a common good);
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of putting in place a properdeveloping the framework for the public procurement of such services for the public sector, including for education providers, to ensure consumer choice and the respect of fundamental righto deepen the market by offering SMEs the opportunity to participate in the procurement of AI applications; stresses the need for public buyers to take into account specific criteria, such as non- discrimination and data privacy, and, specifically when purchasing services for public education providers, the involvement of educators and learners;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the unreliability of the current automated means of removing illegal content from online platforms on which audiovisual content is shared; calls for a ban on generalised moderation and automated content, which may lead to inadvertent removal of legitimate content; notes that unless such systems incorporate satisfactory methods of transparency and fully accessible systems of accountability, automated systems will failter to adequately protect users' rights;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for recommendation algorithms and personalised marketing on audiovisual platforms, including video streaming platforms and news platforms, to be transparent, in order to give consumers insight into these processes and ensure that personalised services are not discriminatory; stresses the need to guarantee and properly implement the right of users to opt out from recommended and personalised services, in line with the adopted Platform to Business Regulation and the New Deal for Consumers Omnibus Directive.
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)