Over the past few years, there has been a proliferation of artificial intelligence strategies, released by governments around the world, that seek to maximise the benefits of AI and minimise potential harms. This article provides a comparative analysis of the European Union and the United States’ AI strategies and considers the visions of a ‘Good AI Society’ that are forwarded in key policy documents and their opportunity costs, the extent to which the implementation of each vision is living up to (...) stated aims and the consequences that these differing visions of a ‘Good AI Society’ have for transatlantic cooperation. The article concludes by comparing the ethical desirability of each vision and identifies areas where the EU, and especially the US, need to improve in order to achieve ethical outcomes and deepen cooperation. (shrink)

As China and the United States strive to be the primary global leader in AI, their visions are coming into conflict. This is frequently painted as a fundamental clash of civilisations, with evidence based primarily around each country’s current political system and present geopolitical tensions. However, such a narrow view claims to extrapolate into the future from an analysis of a momentary situation, ignoring a wealth of historical factors that influence each country’s prevailing philosophy of technology and thus their overarching (...) AI strategies. In this article, we build a philosophy-of-technology-grounded framework to analyse what differences in Chinese and American AI policies exist and, on a fundamental level, why they exist. We support this with Natural Language Processing methods to provide an evidentiary basis for our analysis of policy differences. By looking at documents from three different American presidential administrations––Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden––as well as both national and local policy documents (many available only in Chinese) from China, we provide a thorough comparative analysis of policy differences. This article fills a gap in US–China AI policy comparison and constructs a framework for understanding the origin and trajectory of policy differences. By investigating what factors are informing each country’s philosophy of technology and thus their overall approach to AI policy, we argue that while significant obstacles to cooperation remain, there is room for dialogue and mutual growth. (shrink)

In recent years, policymakers, academics, and practitioners have increasingly called for the development of global governance mechanisms for artificial intelligence (AI). This paper considers the prospects for these calls in light of two other geopolitical trends: digital sovereignty and digital expansionism. While calls for global AI governance promote the surrender of some state sovereignty over AI, digital sovereignty and expansionism seek to secure greater state control over digital technologies. To demystify the tensions between these trends and their potential consequences, we (...) undertake a case analysis of digital sovereignty and digital expansionism in China, the European Union, and the United States. We argue that the extraterritoriality embedded in these three actors’ policies and escalatory competitive narratives, particularly those from the US, will likely undermine substantive global AI governance cooperation. However, nascent areas of alignment or compromise, notably in data governance and technical standards, could prove fruitful starting points for building trust in multilateral fora, such as the G20 or United Nations. (shrink)

The US is promoting a new vision of a “Good AI Society” through its recent AI Bill of Rights. This offers a promising vision of community-oriented equity unique amongst peer countries. However, it leaves the door open for potential rights violations. Furthermore, it may have some federal impact, but it is non-binding, and without concrete legislation, the private sector is likely to ignore it.

This commentary examines the challenges faced by metaverse platforms in cross-border content moderation, focusing on the implications for freedom of expression and nondiscrimination. It highlights the difficulties in determining what to remove for which users as well as how to do so, which has serious implications for freedom of expression and our shared sense of reality. Proto-metaverse platforms such as Roblox and Minecraft face similar questions, but have not yet encountered major cross-jurisdictional issues because, as looking at traditional social media (...) platforms reveals, content moderation is not merely a question of law and policy, but also of geopolitics and government priorities. To avoid a “lowest common denominator effect” where freedom of expression is infringed upon worldwide and discrimination is entrenched, this commentary argues that metaverse platforms must clarify their moderation policies, assess their entry into specific markets based on local laws and their own values, and be prepared to exit overly restrictive markets. (shrink)

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused social and economic devastation. As the milestone of two years of ‘living with the virus’ approaches, governments and businesses are attempting to develop means of reopening society whilst still protecting public health. However, developing interventions – particularly technological interventions – that find a safe, socially acceptable, and ethically justifiable balance between these two seemingly opposing demands is extremely challenging. There is no one right solution, but the current most popular ‘solution’ is the so-called ‘COVID-19 (...) Vaccine Passport’ (also known as COVID-19 passes or certificates), the use of which may be supported by both human rights and international public health law if they are designed and implemented appropriately. (We use the term ‘Vaccine Passport’ because it has been adopted by the popular press. Though it has been used in many ways, here we use it generically to refer to a document that certifies that an individual has been vaccinated against COVID-19 and on that basis grants the bearer more liberties than to those who have not been vaccinated. Later, we will discuss why it is necessary to move beyond considering only vaccinations, which informs our preferred term of ‘COVID-19 Status Pass’.) We set out to answer the following questions: how should governments and businesses assess the risks in light of human rights, public health ethics, and digital ethics concerns which emerge from developing and deploying COVID-19 Vaccine Passports? What design decisions should businesses make when developing COVID-19 Vaccine Passports to help ensure they respect human rights, and both public health and digital ethics? Do the implications for human rights, public health, and digital ethics vary depending on where and when COVID-19 Vaccine Passports are used? What are the rights and powers of the individual to object to or seek remedy for the use of COVID-19 Vaccine Passports? How can the risks of inequalities and social division derived from the deployment of COVID-19 Vaccine Passports be avoided or mitigated? We conducted a literature review and documentary analysis, supplementing our findings with news articles where appropriate. The following pages report our results, concluding with a series of actionable recommendations for businesses, national governments, and supranational organisations. (shrink)