In the best case, legislative clarity

[kexej28769@nongnue]

However, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The actual impact on the entire AI ecosystem will only become apparent in the coming months and years, especially when the newly established Office of Artificial Intelligence, which will be tasked with implementing many of the provisions of the AI Act, begins its work. Among its many responsibilities, the Office of Artificial Intelligence will also oversee the adjustment of the FLOPs threshold over time to reflect changes in technology and industry.

A will be achieved in the coming months through a raft of recommendations, guidance, implementing and delegated acts, codes of practice (such as the voluntary codes of practice introduced under sri lanka number data 69 for the application of specific requirements). However, there are concerns that this could burden SMEs and start-ups active in the lower part of the CMA chart, as they are overwhelmed by the volume of paperwork and face relatively high compliance costs to cope with the new landscape.

The resources that companies like ours need to allocate to keep pace with enforcement may undermine other potential contributions to the AI technology development framework in the coming years, such as participation in the standardization development process. Finally, on to a broader but relatively underdeveloped question in legislation: Who in the supply chain will be held responsible for harm caused by high-risk AI products or systems? Legal clarity on liability is essential to foster a productive dialogue between stakeholders in the AI value chain, especially between developers and deployers.