HIROSHIMA AI PROCESS

1. Context

2. What is Hiroshima AI Process?

• The communique accorded more importance to AI than the technology has ever received in such a form even as G7 leaders were engaged with other issues like the war in Ukraine, economic security, supply chain disruptions, and nuclear disarmament.
• It said that the G7 work with other to "advance international discussions on inclusive AI governance and interoperability to achieve our common vision and the goal of trustworthy AI, in line with our shared democratic value.
• we recognize the need to immediately take stock of the opportunities and challenges of generative AI, which is increasingly prominent across countries and sectors, and encourage international organizations such as the OECD (Organisation for Economics Co­operation and Development) to consider the analysis of the impact of policy developments and Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) to conduct practical projects.
• In this respect, we task-relevant ministers to establish the Hiroshima AI process, through a G7 working group, in an inclusive manner and in cooperation with the OECD and GPAI, for discussions on generative AI by the end of this year.
• These discussions could include topics such as governance, safeguarding of intellectual property rights including copyrights, promotion of transparency, response to foreign information manipulation, including disinformation, and responsible utilization of these technologies.
• The HAP is likely to conclude by December 2023. The first meeting under this process was held on May 30. As Per the communiqué, the process will be organized through a G­7 working group, although the exact details are not clear.

3. How can the process be described?

• An emphasis on freedom, democracy, and human rights, and mentions of “multi­stakeholder international organizations” and “multi­stakeholder processes” indicate that the HAP isn’t expected to address AI regulation from a state­centric perspective.
• Instead, it exists to account for the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in various processes and to ensure the latter is fair and transparent.
• The task before the HAP is really challenging considering the divergence among G­7 countries in, among other things, regulating risks arising out of applying AI. 
• It can help these countries develop a common understanding of some key regulatory issues while ensuring that any disagreement doesn’t result in complete discord.

4. There are three ways in which the HAP can move forward

• It can enable the G7 countries to move towards a divergent regulation based on shared norms, principles, and guiding values.
• It can become overwhelmed by the divergent views among the G7 countries and fail to deliver any meaningful solution; or 
• It can deliver a mixed outcome with some convergence on certain issues and at the same time a lack of common ground on many others.

5. What makes the process remarkable?

• While the communique doesn't indicate the expected outcomes from the HAP, there is enough in there to indicate what values and norms will guide it and from where it will derive its guiding principles, based on which it will govern AI.
• The communique as well as the ministerial declaration also say more than once that AI development and implementation must be aligned with values such as freedom, democracy, and human rights.
• Values need to be linked to principles that drive regulation. To this end, the communique also stresses fairness, accountability, transparency, and safety.
• It spoke of the importance of procedures that advance transparency, openness, and fair processes for developing responsible AI.
• Openness and fair processes can be interpreted in different ways and the exact meaning of the procedure that advances them is not clear.

6. Providing an illustration of how the process can be beneficial

• Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and AI: The relationship between AI and IPR is unclear in different jurisdictions, leading to conflicting interpretations and legal pronouncements.
• HAP's role: The High-Level Artificial Intelligence Principles (HAP) can help G7 countries reach a consensus on AI and IPR by specifying guiding rules and principles.
• Addressing copyright violation: An example is training generative AI models like ChatGPT on copyrighted material, which raises questions about copyright infringement.
• 'Fair use doctrine: The HAP process can bring clarity to the role and scope of the 'fair use doctrine in AI applications, which traditionally permits certain activities without seeking permission from copyright owners.
• Use of copyrighted materials in machine learning: Whether using copyrighted materials in machine learning datasets qualifies as 'fair use' is a controversial issue.
• HAP guideline: The HAP can develop a common guideline for G7 countries allowing the use of copyrighted materials in machine learning datasets as 'fair use,' with certain conditions.
• Differentiating AI-related uses: The guideline can distinguish between machine learning-specific uses and other AI-related applications of copyrighted materials.
• Impact on global discourse: The HAP's efforts could influence global discussions and practices surrounding AI and intellectual property rights.

7. What is the underlying vision or objective?

• The G7 communique and ministerial declaration acknowledge that the common vision of trustworthy AI can differ among G7 members.
• The G7 does not anticipate harmonizing its AI regulations and policies.
• The emphasis is on collaborating with OECD countries and developing an interoperable AI governance framework.
• The HAP process recognizes the need to address concerns from other country groups and international bodies involved in AI technical standards development.
• Countries outside the G7 may launch their own processes similar to the HAP to influence global AI governance.
• The establishment of the HAP highlights that AI governance is a global issue that is likely to become more contested in the future.

Previous year Questions