AI governance calls for effective legislation

Editor's note: China intends to accelerate legislation to improve artificial intelligence governance. Legal Daily spoke with Zhi Zhenfeng, a research fellow at the Institute of Law at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Dai Xin, deputy dean of the Law School at Peking University, about that. Below are excerpts of the interview. The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

China has developed a toolkit of AI governance mechanisms by regulating social media, online gaming, e-commerce and other digital sectors. This has enabled the country to establish an effective legislative approach that is suited to the fast-moving nature of AI.

The approach is marked by China first introducing targeted, sector-specific regulations to address concrete issues, and moving toward a comprehensive national AI law once the necessary conditions are in place.

AI technologies are applied across highly diverse industries with vastly different risk profiles and regulatory needs. Sector-specific legislation therefore provides more precise institutional solutions, avoiding the excessive generality that often accompanies comprehensive legislation. Judicial practice, local legislation and regulatory pilot programs can generate valuable experience and institutional models, laying a solid foundation for future national legislation.

At the moment, legislative priorities should focus on removing institutional barriers that constrain AI development within the existing framework of sectoral legislation, while addressing critical gaps in areas such as data circulation, intellectual property adaptation and the allocation of legal liability.

Over the next three to five years, China's AI legal framework should concentrate on several key priorities. First, it should facilitate the efficient circulation of essential production factors, including data, algorithms and computing power, while establishing clear rules governing the lawful use of training data, data ownership, data transactions and benefit-sharing mechanisms.

Second, China should further improve mechanisms governing algorithm registration, transparency requirements and security assessments, and, when appropriate, elevate these rules from administrative regulations to higher-level legislation in order to strengthen their legal authority and enforceability.

Third, the legal framework should clearly define the responsibilities of AI developers, service providers and users, while improving mechanisms for liability allocation, infringement remedies and dispute resolution to better protect the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and legal entities.

Fourth, efforts should be made to better link AI legislation with the evolving global AI governance architecture. While safeguarding national security, China can deepen international collaboration and contribute Chinese wisdom and solutions to global AI governance.

The agenda framework should guide or require all stakeholders across the AI sector to give due consideration to fundamental social values and the protection of public rights and interests.

At the same time, AI legislation must strike an appropriate balance between stability and flexibility. While establishing clear safety red lines, the legislation should leave adequate room for technological experimentation and industrial innovation. While providing transparent compliance pathways covering data governance, algorithmic models and AI applications, complementary social protection mechanisms should be strengthened to sustain public trust and confidence in AI technologies and their development.

China should deepen its global cooperation in AI research, application and governance, while continuing to build a comprehensive and pragmatic legal and regulatory framework.