Government to Name and Shame AI Companies for Human Rights Violations
In a move to combat the growing threat of AI-driven disinformation and discriminatory biases, the Japanese government is considering new regulations that would publicly identify and shame AI companies responsible for serious human rights violations.
The proposed legislation, expected to be introduced in February, will grant the government the authority to investigate instances of AI-generated content that promotes discrimination or infringes on human rights. Businesses will be required to cooperate with these investigations and comply with government instructions. Failure to do so may result in public naming.
However, the government has opted against imposing criminal penalties or fines, citing concerns that overly restrictive measures could stifle innovation. Instead, the focus will be on public shaming and transparency. Even if an AI service is not deemed severe enough to publicly identify the operator, the government will still disclose the service and similar ones to alert the public.
The criteria for public naming will be determined after further discussion. The government will also identify and disclose critical infrastructures using AI, and will provide guidance and instructions to businesses and the public.
This legislation comes in response to a call for such regulations by an expert panel last month. The government has been working on the legislation since then, with the response to noncompliant operators being the focus of the discussion.
The decision to avoid criminal penalties 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.