While United States and EU grapple with legislation around AI and its consequences , there are no guiding principles limiting development of AI technologies with respect to weapons of war explains Morgan Wright at SentinelOne .

“ If you put the US federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years there would be a shortage of sand .”

Government regulation in software does not work . It has been tried before . During the 1990s , the United States Munitions

Morgan Wright , Chief Security Advisor , SentinelOne

Progress comes with a cost and that cost is the price not being paid by nationstate adversaries like Russia , China , North Korea , Iran .

List of the International Trafficking in Arms Regulation , ITAR regulated the sale and distribution of encryption products and restricted the publication of source code unless it was extremely weak .

This resulted in the landmark legal decision Berstein vs the US Department of State . The short version is that the law was ruled unconstitutional , and encryption source code is an expression of free speech protected under the First Amendment .

The linkage to governmental interest in regulating AI is clear . This time , however , the approach is not to regulate the code itself – AI , but the outcomes produced by the code . The proposed European Union AI Act incorporates a risk-based assessment : minimal , limited , high , and unacceptable .

The approach seems objective , with specific references to specific use cases . However , the devil is always in the details . There are twenty-seven countries in the EU with twenty-seven different ideas about what is best for their own country . This creates a development and compliance headache , as well as potentially stalling entry into the EU markets by the US and other countries

42 www . intelligenttechchannels . com