Artificial intelligence (AI), in it's infancy and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recently introduced ISO 42001:2023 are starting their first round of many boxing matches. ISO/IEC recently published an attempt to establish a governance model for controlling AI. While the intention behind this standard is commendable, the analog approach taken by ISO raises eyebrows, hinting at a potential failure to effectively regulate and guide the rapidly advancing field of AI.
ISO 42001:2023, touted as a comprehensive governance model for AI, relies heavily on analog principles that may not fully grasp the nuances and complexities of the digital realm. Typically these principals are executives steeped either in code development or management neither of which understand the complexities of the other. In an era where AI algorithms are constantly pushing boundaries, the question arises: Can a set of analog (non-automated) control standards truly keep pace with the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of artificial intelligence?
Some critics argue that ISO 42001:2023 is fundamentally flawed in its attempt to control AI. The standard's static nature and rigid analog framework may hinder innovation rather than fostering it. AI, by its very nature, thrives on adaptability and learning from data, making it challenging to regulate with a fixed set of rules, deigned to be controlled by a "governance committee" that doesn't understand it.
One of the most controversial aspects of ISO 42001:2023 is its perceived inability to bridge the governance gap between traditional industries and the AI-driven future. The standard appears to be a product of conventional thinking, lacking the agility required to regulate an industry that constantly pushes technological boundaries. The Standard relies heavily on an "analog" people driven governance model that has not been very automated or technically forward thinking in the past.
While the intention behind ISO 42001:2023 is to ensure responsible and ethical AI development, there are concerns that the analog nature of the standard may lead to unintended consequences. Stricter regulations might stifle innovation, creating a conservative environment that hampers the very progress it aims to guide.
Advocates for a more dynamic governance model argue that AI regulation should mirror the adaptive nature of the technology itself. They propose continuous, data-driven assessments and real-time updates to standards, rather than a static set of rules that may quickly become obsolete in the fast-paced world of AI development.
In conclusion ISO/IEC 42001:2023's attempt to control AI through an analog governance model raises pertinent questions about its effectiveness and adaptability. While the pursuit of ethical AI is crucial, critics argue that a more dynamic and digitally native approach is needed to keep pace with the relentless advancements in artificial intelligence. The controversy surrounding ISO 42001:2023 underscores the broader debate about striking the right balance between regulation and innovation in the ever-evolving landscape of AI.
While these thoughts are my own, what are yours?