Bridging the Global Divide in AI Regulation: A Proposal for a Contextual, Coherent, and Commensurable Framework

This paper examines the current landscape of AI regulations, highlighting the divergent approaches being taken, and proposes an alternative contextual, coherent, and commensurable (3C) framework. The EU, Canada, South Korea, and Brazil follow a horizontal or lateral approach that postulates the homogeneity of AI systems, seeks to identify common causes of harm, and demands uniform human interventions. In contrast, the U.K., Israel, Switzerland, Japan, and China have pursued a context-specific or modular approach, tailoring regulations to the specific use cases of AI systems. The U.S. is reevaluating its strategy, with growing support for controlling existential risks associated with AI. Addressing such fragmentation of AI regulations is crucial to ensure the interoperability of AI. The present degree of proportionality, granularity, and foreseeability of the EU AI Act is not sufficient to garner consensus. The context-specific approach holds greater promises but requires further development in terms of details, coherency, and commensurability. To strike a balance, this paper proposes a hybrid 3C framework. To ensure contextuality, the framework categorizes AI into distinct types based on their usage and interaction with humans: autonomous, allocative, punitive, cognitive, and generative AI. To ensure coherency, each category is assigned specific regulatory objectives: safety for autonomous AI; fairness and explainability for allocative AI; accuracy and explainability for punitive AI; accuracy, robustness, and privacy for cognitive AI; and the mitigation of infringement and misuse for generative AI. To ensure commensurability, the framework promotes the adoption of international industry standards that convert principles into quantifiable metrics. In doing so, the framework is expected to foster international collaboration and standardization without imposing excessive compliance costs.