+52 artikla Menettely
---+52 artikla 1.
---+52 artikla 2.
---+52 artikla 3.
---+52 artikla 4.
---+52 artikla 5.
---+52 artikla 6.
|
52 artikla Menettely
-
1. Yleiskatsaus
| Otsikko |
Sääntely |
|
52 artikla 1.
|
Jos yleiskäyttöinen tekoälymalli täyttää 51 artiklan 1 kohdan a alakohdassa tarkoitetun edellytyksen, asianomaisen tarjoajan on ilmoitettava asiasta komissiolle viipymättä ja joka tapauksessa kahden viikon kuluessa siitä, kun kyseinen vaatimus on täytetty tai on tullut ilmi, että se täyttyy. Ilmoituksessa on oltava tiedot, jotka ovat tarpeen sen osoittamiseksi, että asiaankuuluva vaatimus on täytetty. Jos komission tietoon tulee systeemisiä riskejä aiheuttava yleiskäyttöinen tekoälymalli, josta sille ei ole ilmoitettu, se voi päättää nimetä sen malliksi, johon liittyy systeeminen riski.
|
|
52 artikla 2.
|
Yleiskäyttöisen tekoälymallin tarjoaja, joka täyttää 51 artiklan 1 kohdan a alakohdassa tarkoitetun edellytyksen, voi esittää ilmoituksessaan riittävän pätevät perustelut osoittaakseen, että vaikka yleiskäyttöinen tekoälymalli täyttää kyseisen vaatimuksen, siihen ei sen erityispiirteiden vuoksi liity systeemisiä riskejä, minkä vuoksi sitä ei saisi luokitella yleiskäyttöiseksi tekoälymalliksi, johon liittyy systeeminen riski.
|
|
52 artikla 3.
|
Jos komissio katsoo, että 2 kohdan mukaisesti toimitettuja väitteitä ei ole perusteltu riittävästi eikä asianomainen tarjoaja ole pystynyt osoittamaan, että yleiskäyttöiseen tekoälymalliin ei sen erityispiirteiden vuoksi liity systeemisiä riskejä, se hylkää nämä perustelut ja yleiskäyttöinen tekoälymalli katsotaan yleiskäyttöiseksi tekoälymalliksi, johon liittyy systeeminen riski.
|
|
52 artikla 4.
|
Komissio voi nimetä yleiskäyttöisen tekoälymallin systeemisiä riskejä sisältäväksi joko oma-aloitteisesti tai tiedelautakunnan 90 artiklan 1 kohdan a alakohdan mukaisesti antaman perustellun varoituksen seurauksena liitteessä XIII vahvistettujen kriteerien perusteella. Siirretään komissiolle valta antaa delegoituja säädöksiä 97 artiklan mukaisesti liitteen XIII muuttamiseksi täsmentämällä ja päivittämällä kyseisessä liitteessä olevat kriteerit.
|
|
52 artikla 5.
|
Komissio voi sellaisen tarjoajan, jonka malli on nimetty yleiskäyttöiseksi tekoälymalliksi, johon liittyy systeeminen riski, perustellun pyynnön pohjalta päättää arvioida uudelleen, voidaanko yleiskäyttöisen tekoälymallin katsoa edelleen aiheuttavan systeemisiä riskejä liitteessä XIII vahvistettujen kriteerien perusteella. Tällaisen pyynnön on sisällettävä objektiiviset, yksityiskohtaiset ja uudet perusteet, jotka ovat tulleet esiin nimeämispäätöksen jälkeen. Tarjoajat voivat pyytää uudelleenarviointia aikaisintaan kuuden kuukauden kuluttua nimeämispäätöksestä. Jos komissio uudelleenarvioinnin jälkeen päättää pitää voimassa nimeämisen yleiskäyttöiseksi tekoälymalliksi, johon liittyy systeeminen riski, tarjoajat voivat pyytää uudelleenarviointia aikaisintaan kuuden kuukauden kuluttua kyseisestä päätöksestä.
|
|
52 artikla 6.
|
Komissio varmistaa, että luettelo yleiskäyttöisistä tekoälymalleista, joihin liittyy systeeminen riski, julkaistaan, ja pitää luettelon ajan tasalla, sanotun kuitenkaan rajoittamatta tarvetta noudattaa ja suojella teollis- ja tekijänoikeuksia ja luottamuksellisia liiketoimintatietoja tai liikesalaisuuksia unionin ja kansallisen lainsäädännön mukaisesti.
|
,
1.1 Viittaukset
1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset
1.3 Liittyvät standardit
2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset
Vaatimukset
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
3. Liittyvät standardit
Standardit
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Registration
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain a current registration for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Determine whether any AI use requires registration (e.g., EU AI Act high-risk systems)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Track AI registration obligations by jurisdiction in compliance checklist
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Register high-risk AI systems with relevant authorities as required
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI registration compliance program ∙ Track registration requirements by jurisdiction
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI regulatory compliance platform ∙ Automated registration tracking ∙ EU AI Act database registration compliance
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to maintain a current registration for AAT with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
AI & Autonomous Technologies Registration
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain a current registration for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Determine whether any AI use requires registration (e.g., EU AI Act high-risk systems)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Track AI registration obligations by jurisdiction in compliance checklist
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Register high-risk AI systems with relevant authorities as required
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ AI registration compliance program ∙ Track registration requirements by jurisdiction
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise AI regulatory compliance platform ∙ Automated registration tracking ∙ EU AI Act database registration compliance
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to maintain a current registration for AAT with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|