A restriction on computation and processing of information seems like a restriction on speech, expression, and thought. The list named in this article is just bizarre. For example it mentions that the following would be covered by the proposed policy:
> those designed or used in a manner that manipulates human behaviour, opinions or decisions ...causing a person to behave, form an opinion or take a decision to their detriment
Can't all of marketing, politics, and activism be constructed to fall under this broad statement? It feels to me like this unfairly allows only certain means to achieving the same ends, which ends up favoring certain segments of society at the expense of others. As an example, what makes shaping political opinions using AI inappropriate but shaping it via disruptive protesting appropriate? A person who few responsibilities and enough time to spend protesting is allowed to influence society, and someone who wants to do the same through a different means that makes more sense for them isn't permitted to do so? Similarly, credit worthiness and crime risk assessment are plainly logical ways for individuals, corporations, and governments to contain risks, incentivize the correct behavior, and make smart decisions for themselves. Getting rid of credit scoring is equivalent to income redistribution, since less risky individuals will be forced to subsidize others.
I don't think blanket regulation like this is the answer. The answer lies in ensuring healthy markets with sufficient competition (enforcing anti-trust law), in relying on federalism so that local governments can decide which technologies they want to use or not use, and in privacy controls for users to retain control of their data. Not in restricting math.
> those designed or used in a manner that manipulates human behaviour, opinions or decisions ...causing a person to behave, form an opinion or take a decision to their detriment
Can't all of marketing, politics, and activism be constructed to fall under this broad statement? It feels to me like this unfairly allows only certain means to achieving the same ends, which ends up favoring certain segments of society at the expense of others. As an example, what makes shaping political opinions using AI inappropriate but shaping it via disruptive protesting appropriate? A person who few responsibilities and enough time to spend protesting is allowed to influence society, and someone who wants to do the same through a different means that makes more sense for them isn't permitted to do so? Similarly, credit worthiness and crime risk assessment are plainly logical ways for individuals, corporations, and governments to contain risks, incentivize the correct behavior, and make smart decisions for themselves. Getting rid of credit scoring is equivalent to income redistribution, since less risky individuals will be forced to subsidize others.
I don't think blanket regulation like this is the answer. The answer lies in ensuring healthy markets with sufficient competition (enforcing anti-trust law), in relying on federalism so that local governments can decide which technologies they want to use or not use, and in privacy controls for users to retain control of their data. Not in restricting math.