Organization supports regulation with no harm to innovation.
In the coming weeks, the civil society organization Movimento Brasil Competitivo (MBC), part of the Parliamentary Front for a Competitive Brazil (FPBC), plans to present to Executive and Legislative branch leaders its views on artificial intelligence (AI) policies in the country.
“We support regulation, but not as a hindrance to innovation,” says MBC Executive Director Tatiana Ribeiro. “Our current concern is to expedite a discussion and a model that enables innovation,”
Ms. Ribeiro emphasizes.
MBC’s positions are outlined in the document “Artificial Intelligence - A Vector for Competitiveness.” The document is endorsed by companies such as Amazon, IBM, Google, Qualcomm, and Telefónica, alongside trade associations and federal government representatives. The text argues that “the high costs and complexity of complying with stringent regulations could render the development and implementation of AI solutions unfeasible, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, limiting the adoption of these technologies and reducing Brazilian companies’ competitiveness.”
The most advanced AI regulation proposal in Brazil is Bill 2338/2023, introduced by Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco. After review by the Temporary Internal Committee on Artificial Intelligence in Brazil, the bill returned to rapporteur Senator Eduardo Gomes, who also serves as the Director of Digital Transformation at FPBC.
“The text has evolved but still has issues. We want to see more dialogues,” Ms. Ribeiro says. She highlights copyright issues regarding the training of large language models (LLMs) as one example of the MCB’s concerns. “If we advance and approve comprehensive regulation on copyright, that could affect the development of generative AI and impact the training of international models in our native language,”
Ms. Ribeiro points out.
In the original draft of Bill 2338, Article 42 stipulates that “the automated use of works, such as extraction, reproduction, storage, and transformation in data and text mining processes in AI systems, by research and journalism organizations, museums, archives institutions, and libraries, does not constitute copyright infringement.” Exceptions apply to the automated use of works for “simple reproduction, display, or dissemination of the original work” or actions that “harm the economic interests of the rights holders” without justification.
Another point in the MCB document is the need for Brazil’s regulations to align “with international standards to ensure competitiveness and interoperability with other markets,” citing the United States, Canada, and Japan as examples of countries “committed to fostering growth in the AI sector.”
The argument advocated by the MBC “has been consistently used by the tech market to prevent the passage of legislation in many parts of the world,” says Renata Mielli, coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br). Ms. Mielli argues that regulatory advances for AI are necessary to bring “more legal certainty for companies developing new AI models,” and that the costs of compliance “are proportional to the type and scope of the economic activity developed” by each company, whether a multinational or a startup.
The MCB document does not mention the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, which came into effect in June. Ms. Mielli notes that the EU AI Act features a “much more detailed and stringent regulatory scope than the legislation being discussed in Brazil.”
Source: Valor International