Case for centralized regulation of AI
Chyung Eun-ju
In the realm of technological progress, it is undeniable that AI technology has been the most disruptive innovation in recent times, revolutionizing industries and causing rippling economic effects throughout numerous segments of the market. According to statistics published in the Forbes Advisor, the AI market size is expected to reach $407 billion by 2027.
As we witness this unprecedented growth, we are also seeing that consumers are treading carefully, as they express concerns about businesses using AI. And this led us to question: Should the regulation of AI technology be centralized, especially considering its disruptive nature and the myriad legal and ethical concerns it brings to the forefront?
AI, as we know it today, is already clearly a disruptive innovation, pushing the boundaries of what we once thought was possible. From autonomous vehicles and personalized medicine to algorithmic decision-making and deepfake technology, the capabilities of AI seem limitless. However, with great power comes great responsibility, and the unbridled use of AI has sparked debates around the need for a centralized regulatory framework.
Joel Cho
One of the primary arguments favoring centralized regulation is the sheer diversity of AI applications. From machine learning algorithms that influence our social media feeds with targeted content to advanced image and language processing that generates realistic deepfake content, AI technology manifests itself in various forms, each with its own set of challenges and implications. The spectrum of AI is vast and continuously evolving and people are expressing their concerns over the very volatile and unpredictable future it presents.
Centralized regulation could provide a cohesive approach to address the nuanced legal and ethical concerns associated with these diverse applications.
Consider the issue of AI-generated content and its potential to harm an individual's image and reputation. Deepfake technology, which utilizes AI to create hyper-realistic fake videos or audio recordings, poses a significant threat to personal and public trust. Just back in September, a South Korean man, in his 40s, was sentenced to over two years in prison for creating over 300 items of content depicting sexual abuse of minors through AI. Even going back two years ago, social rage was expressed on the presidential office’s online petition page demanding stricter punishment for deepfake porn depicting female Korean celebrities.
Without centralized oversight, navigating the legal landscape surrounding the malicious use of AI becomes a complex and challenging task. A centralized regulatory body could establish clear guidelines on the responsible use of AI, helping to define the fine line between pushing innovation and abusing it.
It is also impossible to ignore that the current state of limited and decentralized regulation of AI raises concerns over the lack of uniform ethical standards. As AI systems are deployed globally, they interact with diverse cultures, legal systems and societal norms. What might be considered an acceptable use of AI in one jurisdiction could be deemed ethically questionable or even illegal in another. Centralized regulation could bridge these ethical gaps, fostering a global consensus on the responsible development and deployment of AI. For instance, in South Korea, the Ministry of Science and ICT has stepped in by announcing its “AI Ethics and Trustworthiness Assurance Plan” to enhance the reliability of AI-generated content in October of this year. South Korea held the 4th AI High-Level Strategic Dialogue to bring together the government and private sector stakeholders to improve AI trustworthiness after an AI policy promotion event that President Yoon Suk Yeol attended in September. The South Korean government seems to lean towards centralized regulations as the National Assembly participates in legislating AI-related rules. People Power Party lawmaker, Ahn Cheol-soo has been trying to make legal categories for forbidden AI, high-risk AI and low-risk AI.
A centralized regulation could be a key factor in cultivating responsibilities and fostering more innovation by balancing the prospects and risks.
However, we must also acknowledge the fact that the call for centralized regulation is not a universal consensus. Some critics argue that the dynamism of AI technology requires a more flexible and adaptable regulatory approach. Rapid advancements and unforeseen applications demand a regulatory framework that can evolve alongside the technology itself.
The EU parliament was hailed as the first to set thorough AI rules, but recently, conflict with Big Tech firms has hindered the efforts of the European Union. Tech firms are arguing that excessive regulations go against the foundational purpose of AI services such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT. While firms argue that too much regulation can obstruct innovation, lawmakers assert that additional regulations are important to foster innovation.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) AI researcher Max Tegmark, expressed how tech leaders may feel concerned about the AI risks but are more intent on innovating faster than competitors. On Nov. 15, he posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Lawmakers must stand firm and protect thousands of European companies & consumers from the lobbying and regulatory capture of Mistral, Aleph & U.S. tech giants.” He had recommended the establishment of a regulatory agency resembling the Food and Drug Administration but for AI, so that companies demonstrate that the product is safe before releasing source codes of AI models to the public.
YouTube seems to think otherwise. YouTube changed its policies to allow AI-generated content on its platform. Instead of being really restrictive, YouTube gave permission to post deepfakes as long as creators followed some disclosure requirements. As long as creators are transparent and check a box that lets the platform know that the content was generated by AI, creators can upload deepfakes, with a label that lets viewers know it was made by AI. In other words, YouTube is just trusting that creators will be ethical and honest about how their content was made, without robust and reliable tools to detect AI-generated videos. This seems like YouTube is allowing considerable flexibility for creators to generate potentially problematic content.
Such efforts seem to also be regarding the upcoming 2024 U.S. elections. Other Big Tech companies such as Google and Meta, have also revised their policies so that users have to inform viewers if the content was generated through deepfakes. The U.S. Federal Election Commission has also started to put efforts into regulating campaign videos. In South Korea, a revision to the Public Official Election Act was made to ban political campaign videos made with deepfake technology 90 days prior to an election.
In light of this recent heated discussion, governments should be concerned for the well-being of our society, and tools such as AI that play a pivotal role in so many facets of society, must be regulated as weapons are. A world with AI already feels like a dystopian world, and without proper regulation, it seems that the future of this technology may tread toward a world arguably less safe than we are used to.
Chyung Eun-ju (ejchyung@snu.ac.kr) is a marketing analyst at Career Step. She received a bachelor's degree in business from Seoul National University and a master's degree in marketing from Seoul National University. Joel Cho (joelywcho@gmail.com) is a practicing lawyer specializing in IP and digital law.