Activities of Anna FOTYGA related to 2020/2012(INL)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION with recommendations to the Commission on framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies
Amendments (18)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the United Nations Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of freedom, of democracy, of equality and of the rule of law; highlights that all defence- related efforts within the Union framework respect these universal values whilst promoting peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world; recognises that the primary guarantor of Euro-Atlantic security is NATO and that decision making related to AI regulations must be made in close cooperation with Member States, the North Atlantic Council and likeminded partners as the U.S., U.K. Canada or Japan; Is of the opinion that the use of AI should be based on common set of ethical principles: responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable, and governable;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence, both in combat and noncombat situations, must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; calls on the Union to assess the inherent AI-related risks with regard to the application of Union law, and foreseesuggest necessary adjustment and enforcement where neededand when needed; keeping in mind the discrepancies in terms of technical and security infrastructures throughout the European Union;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recognises that unlike defence industrial bases, critical AI innovations could come from small Member States, thus a CSDP-standardized approach should ensure that smaller Member States and SME’s are not crowded out. Stresses that a set of common EU AI capabilities matched to a Member States operating concepts can bridge the technical gaps that could leave out states lacking the relevant technology, industry expertise or the ability to implement AI systems in their defence ministries;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that current and future defence-related activities withinAI, deep learning, quantum computing, machine learning, computer vision, neuro-linguistic programming, virtual reality and augmented reality are all part of the future battlespace that the Union framework willmust draw on AI, on robotics and autonomy, and on related technologies andand prepare for; Thus considers that the Union mustcould assume a leading role in research and development of AI systems in the defence field; believes that the use of AI-enabled applications in defence offer a number of direct benefits such as higher quality collected data, greater situational awareness, increased speed for decision- making, as well as greater reliability of military equipment; recalls that AI systems are also becoming key elements in countering emerging security threats; encourages the European Defence Agency (EDA) to continue its developments in this space;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is of the opinion that reliable, robust and trustworthy AI is a foundational requirement for modern and effective military of XXI century;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Union follows a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer; calls on Member States to combine the analytical efforts of CSDP, NATO and individual command structures to ascertain how, and when, a scenario will develop; such machine-learning crisis simulation systems could offer improved visibility into the causes and drivers of a crisis that might otherwise be overlooked by conventional analysis, which can be too narrow to capture the true complexity of a situation;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that not all members of the international community will follow the regulatory human-centric approach devised by the Union and that authoritarian states will devise a counter framework that will pursue, at the expense of Member States, to deliver military advantages and superiority within the AI domain;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Urges Member States to track and assess the development of AI technologies, particularly military and surveillance, within authoritarian states that avoid compliance with EU led regulations, to avoid a scenario in which our societies, militaries and institutions, fall vulnerable to hybrid warfare;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes for their use, for understanding the related ethical aspects and for fostering an effective international regulatory framework that consults with military, industry, law enforcement, academia and civil society stakeholders to ensure that any framework contains the inherent risks and advantages of these technologies and prevents use for malicious purposes; those include in particular unintended harm to persons, be it material or immaterial, such as breach of fundamental rights;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Underlines that in an era of decentralised innovation and software- driven warfare, accessible data provides strategic advantage, making AI particularly significant when combined with virtual- and augmented-reality visualisation, allowing it to play a significant role in providing advanced training and pre-deployment unit-level preparation for EU or NATO-led forces during peacetime, to ensure a rapid yet smooth transition into conducting operations; encourages therefore the development of European data, generated within the European Union’s borders, in particular with a view to developing industrial technology using machine- generated data;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that defence applications of AI during operations means that autonomous software in compliance with future EU regulations, can be used to assist with maintenance, logistics management, and targeting of offensive and defensive systems; this could serve to ensure that a CSDP force is successfully integrated with autonomous, unmanned ground, air and sea vehicles to provide a standardised level of operational competence and consistency of execution;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses that a digitally shared view of an operational environment, can be developed in seconds to aid overloaded human analysts, and that data sources can be expanded beyond conventional defence-related sources to include open- source and commercially available imagery, metadata, and social media, providing decision makers with a full ‘operating picture’ of a combat or crisis environment;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stressed that all AI-systems in defence must have a concrete and well- defined domain of use and must be endowed with the ability to detect and disengage or diseactivate deployed systems should they move from their domain of use or engage in any escalatory or unintended action; recognises that during operations, machine-learning systems can use sensor data and advanced models to accurately predict and then prevent equipment failure, aiding the ability to prevent and withstand operational failures or logistical shortfalls;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that in tactical scenarios, AI techniques such as reinforcement learning, which allows machines to share their experiences and optimal solutions among themselves, have proven to be a critical asset in military campaigns, leading to the evolution of a highly optimised, robust mission intelligence that is effective at fulfilling objectives set by military command;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that the Union must promote understanding the military implications of AI, of robotics and of autonomy by working alongside military officials; considers that the Union needs to promote the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge on technology development processes and operational methods throughout the supply chain and over the full lifecycle of AI-enabled military capabilities;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recognises in the hybrid and advanced warfare context of today, the volume and velocity of information during the early phases of a crisis might be overwhelming for human analysts and that an AI system could process the information to ensure that human decision-makers are tracking the full spectrum of information within an appropriate time frame for a speedy response;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Stresses that quantum computing could represent the most revolutionary change in conflict since the advent of atomic weaponry and thus urges that the advancement of quantum computing technologies be a priority for the Union and Member States; recognises that acts of aggression, including attacks on critical infrastructure, aided by quantum computing will create a conflict environment in which the time to make decisions will be compressed dramatically from days and hours to minutes and seconds, forcing Member States to develop capabilities that protect themselves and train both its decision makers and military personnel to respond effectively within such timeframes;
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the need to overcome the current fragmentation within the Union as regards national AI-related law, research, innovation and expertise in the area of AI, which puts in jeopardy the internal market and the objective to ensure trustworthy and secure development of AI in Europe; in this respect welcomes the inclusion of AI- related projects under the European Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); believes that the future European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) also offer well adapted frameworks for future AI- related projects that would help to better streamline Union efforts in this field; stresses that this cooperation should be open to the most advanced and trustworthy partners outside the EU, such as the UK, US and Canada;