High-Risk AI Systems and the Problem of Identity in the European AI Act
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification." These obligations presuppose AI identity judgments: regulators and providers must decide when an updated system remains the same system over time. In this work, we show how this logic is clarified by the function+ framework of artifact identity, which individuates AI systems by their intended function together with context-sensitive criteria of appropriate functioning, captured as "AI trustworthiness." We further argue that the AIA does not provide an internal, auditable criterion for synchronic identity--when two AI systems at a given time should count as the same for regulatory purposes--and instead largely defers such sameness determinations to sectoral or harmonization instruments. function+ supplies a synchronic identity test anchored in intended function and trustworthiness profiles and levels, making synchronic identity decisions inspectable in governance settings such as procurement, liability, and market surveillance. Our contribution is a conceptual and auditing lens: we provide a correspondence map between AIA lifecycle obligations and function+ identity components, and we make the synchronic case operationally legible via a minimal decision flow for audit and dispute contexts. We conclude with two implementation-facing recommendations: (1) more precise, testable reporting of intended purpose, and (2) standardized, auditable trustworthiness reporting that supports comparability over time and across deployments.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Vertical Standardisation for High-Risk AI Systems under the EU AI Act: A Domain-Specific Framework for Algorithmic Hiring
According to the recent European legislation, high-risk AI systems will have to adapt in order to comply with requirements related to specific areas, like risk management, data quality and governance, logging and traceab…
Who Would Chatbots Vote For? Political Preferences of ChatGPT and Gemini in the 2024 European Union Elections
This study examines the political bias of chatbots powered by large language models, namely ChatGPT and Gemini, in the context of the 2024 European Parliament elections. The research focused on the evaluation of politica…
Towards an AI Accountability Policy
We propose establishing an office to oversee AI systems by introducing a tiered system of explainability and benchmarking requirements for commercial AI systems. We examine how complex high-risk technologies have been su…
BenchmarkingFairnessConsidering Fundamental Rights in the European Standardisation of Artificial Intelligence: Nonsense or Strategic Alliance?
In the European context, both the EU AI Act proposal and the draft Standardisation Request on safe and trustworthy AI link standardisation to fundamental rights. However, these texts do not provide any guidelines that sp…
validFrom Bias to Accountability: How the EU AI Act Confronts Challenges in European GeoAI Auditing
Bias in geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) models has been documented, yet the evidence is scattered across narrowly focused studies. We synthesize this fragmented literature to provide a concise overview of bias…
Articles