* The author is part of the community of readers of La Vanguardia
At this point it should not be necessary to remember that on March 13, 2024, the European Parliament, with 523 votes in favor, 46 against and 49 abstentions, approved what we know as the Artificial Intelligence Law. Or maybe yes?
It is plausible that understanding beyond the applications of generative AI is limited, which has led to crucial aspects, such as the content of this legislation, being confined to an elitist circle where only a few specialists in the sector can function with ease.
In this sense, from the Public Sector and Artificial Intelligence Observatory, a survey was launched with the purpose of evaluating the level of citizen knowledge regarding the law. Six main questions were asked, in addition to requesting information on profession, gender, age and country of residence.
The questions were the following:
The results obtained show a high degree of misinformation on the subject and a deep disconnection between citizens and legislation. Following the order of the questions: 39.1% of respondents stated that they had not heard of the AI Law before (therefore, 60.9% were aware of the regulations). In the second question, 63.8% of people indicated that they did not know what the AI Law regulates. In the other cases, 36.2% expressed, for the most part, general aspects; for example: establishes a regulatory framework, guarantees transparency, among others.
In very specific cases, the responses referred to the risk of AI or the limits in relation to people's Fundamental Rights.
The third answer was somewhat longer. A leitmotiv was detected represented by the need to regulate the use of AI to prevent the risks it entails.
When the survey delves into the details of the Law, specifically in question four, respondents provide multiple answers that especially advocate for the privacy of people's data and the need to regulate AI due to the possibility that it has produce deepfake calls.
On the topic of how the law can affect the citizen, 55% of those surveyed do not know how to answer. In the other cases, the answers are once again general and respond to a type of fear towards this technology: “I hope the law protects me.”
Finally, in question six, 85.5% of people understand that regulation of AI is necessary (8.7% respond not knowing and 5.8% that no regulation is necessary).
It is important to highlight that the respondents come from various professional fields, with the vast majority of these not related to technological professions. 59.4% of those surveyed were male, 39.1% were female, and 1.4% preferred not to respond. Regarding the age range, 5.8% were between 18 and 25 years old, 2.9% between 26 and 30, 14.5% between 31 and 40, 36.2% between 41 and 50, 20.3% between 51 and 60, 18.8% between 61 and 70 and 1.4% over 70. Finally, the countries of origin of the respondents were: Spain, Italy, Argentina, Mexico, United States , Colombia and Germany. 92.7% were from European countries.
The final result of the work shows, without a doubt, that citizens are unaware of the Artificial Intelligence Law and this can represent a big problem. One of the main challenges of the entire legislative process of this law was to create a standard that focused on the protection of people and was based on the ethical, social foundations and respect for the Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
However, from now on, the real challenge is for citizens to know and feel as their own a regulation whose complexities, also linguistic, far exceed the knowledge that European citizens may have in the regulated matter.
The risk, therefore, is that the AI Law is perceived as a technical instrument exclusive to those working in the technology and regulatory sector. Likewise, the Law runs the risk of creating a real gap in citizen perception.
The norms, as is known, must be of general scope, regardless of the social and educational background of the people. In this sense, awareness-raising policies that introduce European citizens to knowledge of the Law and its effects are absolutely necessary.
This scenario is extremely important, since the AI Law itself attempts to minimize the intervention of national legislators. This means that we are facing a law that will accompany us both in the positive and negative aspects of the progression of AI in our lives.
There is no other option than for the law to adapt to citizen knowledge and not the other way around.
