Japan to Name and Shame AI Companies for Human Rights Violations, Avoiding Criminal Penalties

78
2
Japan to Name and Shame AI Companies for Human Rights Violations, Avoiding Criminal Penalties

Government to Name and Shame AI Companies for Human Rights Violations

In an effort to combat the spread of disinformation and discriminatory biases associated with artificial intelligence, the Japanese government is considering new regulations that would allow them to publicly identify and shame AI companies responsible for serious human rights violations.

This proposed legislation, expected to be introduced in February, would grant the government the authority to investigate instances of AI-generated content that promotes discrimination or infringes on human rights. Businesses would be required to cooperate with these investigations and comply with government instructions. Failure to do so could result in public naming.

However, the government has decided against imposing criminal penalties or fines, citing concerns that overly restrictive measures could stifle innovation. Instead, they will also disclose the service and similar ones to alert the public, even if the AI service is not deemed severe enough to publicly identify the operator. The criteria for public naming will be determined after further discussion.

This decision reflects the government's desire to strike a balance between promoting AI innovation and mitigating risks. Experts have warned that overly strict regulations could undermine Japan’s global competitiveness as well as freedom of speech and expression. They argue that the government should intervene only when voluntary self-regulation by businesses is unlikely to be effective.

However, some experts have questioned the effectiveness of naming and shaming, particularly when it comes to individuals and overseas companies. They argue that more concrete penalties may be necessary to ensure compliance.

The government has been working on this legislation since last month, when an expert panel called for such regulations. The response to noncompliant operators has been the focus of the discussion.