Comparing AI regulatory frameworks: EU, US, China and beyond
GAFAI Policy, Regulation and International Cooperation Council
A panel in the GAFAI Council Webinar Series on where the world's three big approaches to AI rules agree, where they split, and what that means for companies working across borders.
AI regulation is no longer one conversation. It is several, moving at different speeds in different places, and companies that build or buy AI across borders have to live with all of them at once.
On this panel I spoke alongside Anam Mukhtar, with Dr. Divya Jaiswal moderating, for the Council I sit on at the Global Alliance for Artificial Intelligence.
What we covered
- The EU AI Act and its risk based approach: the higher the risk of the use, the heavier the duties.
- The US approach, which leans on existing sector rules and puts innovation first.
- China's model, where governance is set centrally.
- Where the three line up, where they clash, and what a company should do when it has to satisfy more than one.
The question underneath it all
Can the world find enough common ground to govern AI well? My view from audit: start with the controls that every framework ends up asking for anyway. Know what AI you run, who owns it, what data it uses and how you would know it was going wrong. That work pays off under any rulebook.
