3.8 Article

A Sandbox Approach to Regulating High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Applications

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RISK REGULATION
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 270-294

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/err.2021.52

Keywords

artificial intelligence; sandbox regulation; strict liability; fault-based liability; EU regulation

Categories

Funding

  1. NPRP award from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of the Qatar Foundation) [NPRP11C-1229-170007]
  2. Qatar National Research Fund (a member of the Qatar Foundation)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper argues for using a sandbox approach to regulate artificial intelligence as a complement to a strict liability regime in order to strike a balance between protecting people and fostering innovation. The benefits of sandbox regulation, as proposed by the authors, include creating a safe space for innovation in the AI sector and reducing the chilling effect of strict liability on innovation. EU regulators have already embraced the idea of sandbox regulation for testing AI products and services with safeguards.
This paper argues for a sandbox approach to regulating artificial intelligence (AI) to complement a strict liability regime. The authors argue that sandbox regulation is an appropriate complement to a strict liability approach, given the need to maintain a balance between a regulatory approach that aims to protect people and society on the one hand and to foster innovation due to the constant and rapid developments in the AI field on the other. The authors analyse the benefits of sandbox regulation when used as a supplement to a strict liability regime, which by itself creates a chilling effect on AI innovation, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. The authors propose a regulatory safe space in the AI sector through sandbox regulation, an idea already embraced by European Union regulators and where AI products and services can be tested within safeguards.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available