Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD
Technology is moving forward with light speed now than ever before. We overcame Moore’s law – computational strength doubles every six months than every two years – as regulations are, and become, playing catchup.
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act began only in August 2024 and was already falling. This will not be considered Ai agents And still wrestling with generative AI (Genai) and foundation models. Article 28B was added to the law on June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the development of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers first raped the law in April 2021.
As we move on to robotics and the use of virtual reality devices, a “new paradigm of AI architecture” will be developedResponding to Genai limits to create robots and virtual devices that can reason the world, unlike Genai models. Perhaps spending time drafting a new article in Genai is not time spent.
Moreover, technology regulations are relatively dichotomized. There are regulations on AI, such as the EU AI Act; Web3, like markets in crypto-assets; and the security of digital information, such as the EU Cybersecurity Act and the Digital Operational Resilience Act.
This dichotomy is difficult for users and businesses to follow. Moreover, it is not aligned with how solutions and products are developed. Each solution includes many technologies, while each component of technology has separate regulations.
It may be time to re -consider the method of regulating technology.
A comprehensive approach
Tech companies are driving boundaries with cutting technologies, including Web3, AI, Quantum Computing and others that have emerged. Other industries follow the suit on the experiment and implementation of these technologies.
Everything is digital, and each product includes some technologies. Think of Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They have hardware, goggles, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets and more, and they are closely integrated with web3 technology.
A comprehensive regulatory approach is the most appropriate approach for the following main reasons.
A solution that is full-system
Most, if not all, solutions require Integration of many emerging technologies. If we have separate rules and regulations for each technology, how can we make sure the product/service is compliant? Where does one rule and the other end start?
Recently: Revenues in the Animoca Brands climb as AI cut costs by 12%
Separate guidelines will probably introduce greater complexity, mistakes and misinterpretations, which will eventually result in more harm than good. If the implementation of the technologies is all that covers and comprehensive, the regulating strategy should also be.
Different technologies support each other’s weaknesses
All technologies have strength and weakness, and often, the strengths of one technology can support the shortcomings of others.
For example, you can Support Web3 by enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of implementing smart contracts and security and blockchain monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can help with display “Responsible AI,” as a blockchain is all non-transparent, traceable, trustworthy and tamper.
When AI supports Web3 And conversely, we implement a comprehensive, safe, safe and reliable solution. Will the solutions be compliant with AI or following the web3? With this solution, it will be a challenge for following compliance. The solution must comply with and comply with all the rules/policies. It is best if these rules/policies cover all technologies, including their integration.
An active approach
We need active regulation. Many of the proposals of regulation, in all regions, seem to reactions to the changes we know about today and are not too far from thinking about how to provide frameworks for what may come five or 10 years down the line.
If, for example, we already know that there will be a “new paradigm of AI architecture,” perhaps in the next five years, then why not start thinking now, not in 5 years, how can it regulate? Or better, look for a regulation framework that will apply somehow technology is emerging.
Think about responsible change. Responsible change, simple, means making new technologies that work for society without causing more problems than they solve. In other words: “Do good, don’t be with.”
Responsible change
Responsible principles of change are designed to break all technologies, not just AI. These principles recognize that all technologies can have accidental consequences to users, bystanders and society, and this is the responsibility of companies and developers who create those technologies to identify and reduce risks.
The responsible principles of change are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will change the future. This can be the basis for the regulation of technology. However, companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that the change is responsible for promoting the trust of users, which will be translated into the main adoption.
FACTS IN TECHNOLOGY ACT
The Securities Act of 1933Also known as the law “Security Truth”, was created to protect investors from fraud and misconduct and restore public confidence in the stock market in response to the stock market crash in 1929.
In the main part of the law lies loyalty and transparency, the essential components to promote public confidence in the stock market, or in anything for that matter.
This law has endured the test of time – an “evergreen” law. Security trade and the financial industry have become more digital and more technological, but the basic principles of this law still apply and continue.
Based on the principles of responsible change, we can design a “reality of technology act,” which will promote public confidence in technology, worldwide, now and in the future. In the beginning, we are looking for these products and services to be safe, safe, ethical, privacy, accurate, easy to understand, hear, transparent and responsible. These values are international in regions, industries and technology, and since the technology is unknown, nor should the regulations.
Innovation can create value, but it can also cut or destroy it. Regulation helps limit the late two types of changes, while well -designed regulations can enable the first type to survive and develop. A global partnership may find ways to indicate a change that creates value for the benefit of the global economy and society.
It may be time for a reality of technology technology – a international, comprehensive, evergreen regulation for the good of the people of the world.
Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be done as legal or investment advice. The views, attitudes, and opinions expressed here are unique and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of the cointelegraph.
