8 Amendments of Andrey KOVATCHEV related to 2020/2012(INL)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the importance of an EU regulatory framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence , robotics and related technologies being applicable where consumers within the Union are users of or subject to an algorithmic system, irrespective of the place of establishment of the entities that develop, sell or employ the system in order to bring legal certainty to business and citizens alike;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that any future regulation should follow a differentiated risk-based approach, with clear criteria and indicators, followed by an impartial and regulated assessment based on the potential harm for the individual as well as for society at large, taking into account the specific use context of the algorithmic system; legal obligations should gradually increase with the identified risk level; in the lowest risk category there should be no additional legal obligations; algorithmic systems that may harm an individual, impact an individual’s access to resources, or concern their participation in society shall not be deemed to be in the lowest risk category; this risk-based approach should follow by clear and transparent rules;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the importance of an ethical and regulatory framework including in particular provisions on the quality of data sets used in algorithmic systems, especially regarding the representativeness of training data used, on the de-biasing of data sets, as well as on the algorithms themselves, and on data and aggregation standardshigh-quality and, where possible, unbiased data sets in order to improve the output of algorithmic systems and boost consumer trust and acceptance;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the importance of ensuring the availability of effective remedies for consumers and calls on the Member States and national market surveillance authorities to ensure that accessible, affordable, independent and effective procedures and review structures are available to guarantee an impartial human review of all claims of violations of consumer rights through the use of algorithmic systems, whether stemming from public or private sector actors;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that where public money contributes to the development or implementation of an algorithmic system, the code, the generated data -as far as it is non-personal- and the trained model should be public by defaultaccessible, to enable transparency and reuse, among other goals, to maximise the achievement of the Single Market, and to avoid market fragmentation;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls that an examination of the current EU legal framework, including the consumer law acquis, data protection legislation, product liability legislation, product safety and market surveillance legislation, is needed to check that it is able to respond to the emergence of AI and automated decision-making and that it is able to provide a high level of consumer protection;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines the importance of training highly skilled professionals in this area and ensuring, the need of having diverse teams of developers and engineers working alongside with key actors to prevent gender and cultural bias of being inadvertently included in AI algorithms, systems and applications and ensure the mutual recognition of such qualifications across the Union;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the Union to establish a European market surveillance structure for algorithmic systemcomposed of national market surveillance authorities issuing guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities;