Potrei citare le 4 pagine di indice ma servirebbe solo a comprendere l'ampiezza dello studio del Parlamento Europeo.
Naturalmente in inglese.
The purpose of this European added value assessment (EAVA) is to provide an evidence-b a sed evaluation and assessment to accompany the European Parliament's draft report on a legislative initiative proposal on a civil liability regime for artificial intelligence (2020/2014 INL).
The report has been initiated by the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in accordance with Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).21.2.Methodology and scope of the European added value assessmentThis EAVA focuses on the regulation of civil liability for artificial intelligence (AI) systems a t E U l e v el.
There are three main objectives:
- first, to analyse the main socio-economic functions of liability rules, and thus, ultimately, explain why liability r egula t ion s h ou ld be k ey to AI policy;
- second, to assess the current regulation of liability and specifically how the current framework applies or potentially could apply to AI at EU and national level;
- third, to assess what could be the potential added value, measured in quantitative economic terms, of taking common EU a ct io n on a civil liability regime for artificial intelligence.
European added value of EU action on civil liability regime for AI is assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The ^ qualitative assessment of European added value is threefold: first,
Chapter 2 pr o v ides an analysis of the socio-economic functions of liability rules on the basis of the literature available; second,
Chapter 3 focuses on EU-level analysis and explains the scope and limits of the application of the Product Liability Directive to AI; third,
Chapter 4 focuses on the regulation of liability in the Member States, with a specific focus on the applicability of the existing rules to AI systems. The main aim of the comparative analysis of current practices in the Member States is to provide a concise picture of the existing regulatory mixes between fault-based and strict liability rules, and, more specifically, to map the scope and conditions of the application of the strict liability rules in the Member States.
The question underlying this comparative legal analysis is where the regulation of AI should be placed in the current system and whether adjustment is necessary. A b e t ter understanding of Member States' liability systems can also contribute to discussions at EU level on possible EU solutions and how they would fit in with existing Member State rules.
The co m p a r ative legal analysis is based on the original dataset of national rules from 19 EU Member States, s p e c i f i c ally collected for this EAVA and discussed and presented in full in Annexes I and II.3
The ^ quantitative assessmentof added value, in Chapter 6, estimates the possible net benefits that could be generated as a result of EU civil law rules on the liability of AI a s co m p a r ed t o t h e in d iv idual actions of Member States. This quantitative assessment is based on a two-step analytical model. First, the added value is quantified, as a net benefit for the EU economy resulting from additional investment in research and development related to AI;
second, the added value is measured considering broader economic impacts, including reduced accidents, health and environmental impacts, tax revenues and user impacts.The quantitative assessment builds on the data, methodology and ^ results of the Cost of non-Europe in robotics and AI: liability, insurance and risk management (2019) and European added va lue assessment: A common EU approach to liability rules and insurance for connected and autonomous vehicles (2018).
As will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, both studies provide only very partial results, as they cover o nly s pecific s ect o r s (i.e. a u t on om ou s vehicles in the 2018 study) and specific types of impact (mainly research and development). Therefore, the quantification presented in this EAVA should be considered as preliminary, providing only initial guidance and discussion on the possible costs and benefits of EU civil law rules on liability of A