{"id":8973,"date":"2025-05-16T14:07:42","date_gmt":"2025-05-16T14:07:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pulse-z.eu\/the-ai-code-of-conduct-a-tool-for-trust-or-a-shield-for-big-tech-2\/"},"modified":"2025-06-12T08:59:54","modified_gmt":"2025-06-12T08:59:54","slug":"kodex-spravania-umelej-inteligencie-nastroj-dovery-alebo-stit-pre-velke-technologicke-spolocnosti","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pulse-z.eu\/sk\/kodex-spravania-umelej-inteligencie-nastroj-dovery-alebo-stit-pre-velke-technologicke-spolocnosti\/","title":{"rendered":"K\u00f3dex spr\u00e1vania umelej inteligencie: N\u00e1stroj d\u00f4very alebo \u0161t\u00edt pre ve\u013ek\u00e9 technologick\u00e9 spolo\u010dnosti?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The <\/span>General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (GPAI CoP)<\/span><\/a> was meant to make sure AI you can trust gets built. But more and more groups and experts are saying it could end up just helping big companies get their way instead of keeping the public safe from AI risks. Will regular folks getting angry about this even matter?<\/span><\/p>\n

The Code’s Getting Heat<\/b><\/p>\n

At that AI meeting in France, all anyone talked about was money stuff, not really about keeping AI safe or protecting people’s rights. And according to a lot of people from regular society, the same thing’s happening with this AI Code for things like ChatGPT.<\/span><\/p>\n

This Code is being put together by thirteen smart people from universities, with help from a ton of experts, charities, scientists, and companies \u2013 almost a thousand in total. It’s supposed to tell the companies making ChatGPT-like stuff how to follow the EU’s AI rules. But some groups are already thinking about ditching the whole thing.<\/span><\/p>\n

“If this is just a show to make it look like decisions are being made fairly, then it’s pointless,” said Karine Caunes, who runs Digihumanism and edits the European Law Journal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other human rights groups working on the GPAI CoP feel the same way. A few academics and people from charities are even thinking about walking out in protest because they don’t think anyone’s actually listening to them.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Risk List: Where Things Get Messy<\/b><\/p>\n

The most important part of the Code is how it lists AI risks. But the way it looks now isn’t what the civil rights groups were hoping for.<\/span><\/p>\n

The very first rule of the EU’s AI law says it’s there to protect basic rights, reminds Sarah Andrew from the group Avaaz.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the Code treats risks to people’s rights as just “extra things to think about,” instead of putting them right up there with the main risks. Plus, things like “lots of illegal discrimination” or “messing with people in harmful ways” are on the risk list, but they’ve added words that make them seem less important.<\/span><\/p>\n

If they’ve already messed up how they’re listing the risks, then the whole system for managing AI will be flawed, Andrew warns.<\/span><\/p>\n

Missing Stuff: Checking Up on Companies and Knowing How AI is Trained<\/b><\/p>\n

Groups that focus on AI safety point out another problem: they don’t have to have independent security checks, and they don’t have to be clear about how they train their AI models.<\/span><\/p>\n

Experts say that if companies can just test their own AI without anyone else looking, the system will be easy to abuse. Another big issue with the Code is whether they have to share how they train their AI. Tech companies don’t want to give away details about the information they use to train their systems because they’re worried about copyright and keeping data private.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Security Coalition, which includes a well-known expert named Stuart Russell, sent a letter to the people in charge of the Code with four main things they want to change:<\/span><\/p>\n