Dr Marc Warner is chief executive and co-founder of AI company Faculty, and a member of both the Digital Economic Advisory Council and the AI Council.

But as Britain sets its own course on everything from immigration to fishing, there is one area where the battle for influence is only just kicking off: the future regulation of artificial intelligence.

As AI becomes a part of our everyday lives — from facial recognition software to the use of “black-box” algorithms — the need for regulation has become more apparent. But around the world, there is rigorous disagreement about how to do it. 

Last Wednesday, the EU set out its approach in a white paper, proposing regulations on AI in line with “European values, ethics and rules”. It outlined a tough legal regime, including pre-vetting and human oversight, for high-risk AI applications in sectors such as medicine and a voluntary labelling scheme for the rest. 

In contrast, across the Atlantic, Donald Trump’s White House has so far taken a light-touch approach, publishing 10 principles for public bodies designed to ensure that regulation of AI doesn’t “needlessly” get in the way of innovation.

Britain has still to set out its own approach, and we must not be too late to the party. If we are, we may lose the opportunity to influence the shaping of rules that will impact our own industry for decades to come. 

This matters, because AI firms — the growth generators of the future —  can choose where to locate and which market to target, and will do so partly based on the regulations which apply there. 

Put simply, the regulation of AI is too important for Britain’s future prosperity to leave it up to the EU or anyone else.

That doesn’t mean a race to the bottom. Regulation is meaningless if it is so lax that it doesn’t prevent harm. But if we get it right, Britain will be able to maintain its position as the technology capital of Europe, as well as setting thoughtful standards that guide the rest of the western world.

So what should a British approach to AI regulation look like?

It is tempting for our legislators to simply give legal force to some of the many vague ethical codes currently floating around the industry. But the lack of specificity of these codes means that they would result in heavy-handed blanket regulation, which could have a chilling effect on innovation.

Instead, the aim must be to ensure that AI works effectively and safely, while giving companies space to innovate. With that in mind, we have created four principles which we believe a British approach to AI regulation should be designed around.

The first is that regulations should be context-specific. “AI” is not one technology, and it cannot be governed as such. Medical algorithms and recommender algorithms, for example, are likely to both be regulated, but to differing extents because of the impact of the outcomes — the consequences of a diagnostic error are far greater than an algorithm pushing an irrelevant product advert into your social media feed. 

Our second principle is that regulation must be precise; it should not be left up to tech companies themselves to interpret. 

Fortunately, the latest developments in AI research — including some which we are pioneering at Faculty — allow for analysis of an algorithm’s performance across a range of important dimensions: accuracy (how good is an AI tool at doing its job?); fairness (does it have implicit biases?); privacy (does it leak people’s data?); robustness (does it fail unexpectedly?); and explainability (do we know how it is working?).

Regulators should set out precise thresholds for each of these according to the context in which the AI tool is deployed. For instance, an algorithm which hands out supermarket loyalty points might be measured only on whether it is fair and protects personal data, whereas one making clinical decisions in a hospital would be required to reach better-than-human-average standards in every area. 

The third principle is that regulators must balance transparency with trust. For example, they might publish one set of standards for supermarket loyalty programmes, and another for radiology algorithms. Each would be subject to different licensing regimes: a light-touch one for supermarkets, and a much tougher inspection regime for hospitals.

Finally, regulators will need to equip themselves with the skills and know-how needed to design and manage this regime. That means having data scientists and engineers who can look under the bonnet of an AI tool, as well as ethicists and economists. They will also need the powers to investigate any algorithm’s performance. 

These four principles offer the basis for a regulatory regime precise enough to be meaningful, nuanced enough to permit innovation, and robust enough to retain public trust.

We believe they offer a pragmatic guide for the UK to chart its own path and lead the debate about the future of the AI industry.

The post Don’t leave it up to the EU to decide how we regulate AI appeared first on Artificial Intelligence.

Artificial intelligence is becoming commonplace, from your smartphone and your Amazon account to the driverless cars that will soon grace public roads in Australia.

Often, the response to this reality is one of trepidation and concern, about mass unemployment and the dominance of Big Tech. But that’s not always the case.

“Art is one of the last domains in AI where there is an optimistic view on how humans and machines can work together,” says Dave King, founder of Move 37, a creative AI company.

He says creativity is not a God-given thing. It’s a process, and it takes practice.

“One of the most interesting aspects of creativity is that ability to combine ideas or to draw things together,” he says.

“If you have an algorithm that is working for you in the way you want it to it can source and discover lots and lots of different things.”

AI is already being used in a range of artistic fields. Algorithms trained on millions of pages of romance novels have been used to write poems, and the recent Robot Art Competition showed a range of paintings with brushwork so sophisticated it could have been done by a human hand.

Jon McCormack is an artist and professor of computer science at Monash University whose work incorporates algorithms.

His series Fifty Sisters (2012) featured images of futuristic-looking plants that were “algorithmically grown” from computer code. In another work, titled Eden, he created an installation featuring “virtual creatures” whose movements were influenced by gallery visitors entering the space.

McCormack says when there is concern about AI, it is understandable.

“We’re naturally scared of anything where we take away something from people, particularly something as precious as being creative and art, which we associate with being the most fundamental human [trait] — that thing that differentiates us from every other species on the planet,” he said.

After all, as AI expert Professor Toby Walsh notes: “We have one of the most creative brains out there.”

“One of the oldest jobs on the planet, being a carpenter or an artisan, we will value most [in the future] because we will like to see an object carved or touched by the human hand, not a machine.”

Artists have always used tools to create their work: for Van Gogh, it was a paint brush; for Henri Cartier-Bresson, a Leica camera.

With AI, however, the question becomes one of authorship.

“I see myself as being the artist,” McCormack says of his compositions. “The computer is still very primitive — it doesn’t have the same capabilities as a human creative, but it’s capable of doing things that complement our intelligence.

King says AI currently can only bring a limited perspective to artistic practice.

“They can only draw on what they’ve been trained on,” he says, referring to the reams of data used to create artificial intelligence. “Whereas the human condition is expansive and broad and brings a lot more depth of perspective to it.”

By itself, AI can certainly generate things that looklike art, McCormack says. Whether you could consider it art is a harder question.

“So much of what we think about art is humans communicating to each other,” he says.

“As soon as you bring a computer into the mix, suddenly you’ve got a non-human entity trying to fulfil the role that used to be occupied exclusively by people.”

Soon, however, it may be possible to go further; to consider the machine not just a tool, but a partner or collaborator, with its own ability to create.

“We always think of Lennon and McCartney as being the great musical creative partnership,” McCormack says.

“Will we eventually see a point in time where we have a human and computer partnership that we acknowledge as being more than the sum of its parts?

“If the art was really, really good — if it moved us emotionally in the way the best art does — then I think we would come to start to accept art that’s made by machines.”

The post Artificial intelligence and creativity: If robots can make art, what’s left for us? appeared first on Artificial Intelligence.