1. The purpose of the IT product Telepathy – the brain-computer interface of  Nueralink

The UN General Assembly Resolution of 22.03.2024 No. A/78/L.49 “Harnessing the Potential of Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Systems for Sustainable Development” [1] confirms (paragraph 5) that"human rights and fundamental freedoms must be respected, protected and encouraged throughout the life cycle of artificial intelligence systems"and to all Member States of the United Nations and, where appropriate, In such cases, other interested parties should"refrain from using or stop using artificial intelligence systems that cannot be operated in accordance with international law or that create undue risks to the enjoyment of human rights, particularly for those in vulnerable situations,”at the same time"The rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including throughout the life cycle of artificial intelligence systems".

The artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems currently being created, tested and deployed are covered by the broader concept of information technology product (“IT product”).

In turn, the author of the term artificial intelligence, Stanford University professor John McCarthy, defined intelligence as"computing part the ability to achieve goals in the world", and AI is like"science and technology of creation intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs". At the same time, the same author predicts or laments that"Once this works, no one else will will not call it AI."[20]

Dear Colleagues and Friends, 

Since I am only an IT college student so I have not been involved in any serious project in the IT field. However, I hope that my student membership in AСM allows me to share my views with established professionals and thus join a broad and constructive discussion on AI issues. 

Over the past couple of years, the topic of harmonious development of technologies based on the fruits of AI has attracted everyone's close attention. In an effort to understand the current stage of development of this technology and its perception by society and the government, I attended a lot of online events (including extremely enriching ACM Talks webinars), read dozens of articles in the professional and business press, studied regulations AI issues by EU, US and UN.

However, I do not see or feel that this collective search has harmonized the views on AI development expressed by inventors, representatives of the business community, IT specialists, and current and future users of AI products.

As a future IT professional, I would like to see less confrontation and more solidarity regarding the global technological breakthrough.

As an accomplished legal professional, I see that now is an important moment to move from honing the principles of working with AI to formulating and implementing (somewhat proactively) specific mechanisms for the implementation of AI products, as well as establishing fair and responsible regulation of their social and legal consequences. 

In the context of the above, I offer for consideration my views on two aspects of the development and implementation of AI technologies:

Issues of cooperation in the field of regulation of computing power, joint insurance of AI products, and determining the social status and protection of persons with a hybrid nervous system (hybrid people) 

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

In furtherance of the discussion on the topic of "Key technology policy issues will be grappling with in 2025", let me outline some mullings at the intersection of the theory and practice of computer science, law, and neuroethics.

«Our society and thus each individual has the possibility to (help) decide how the world, in which we want to live with artificial intelligence in the future, should look. Philosophy, law, and technology play a central role in the discourse that has to be conducted for this purpose» (from Fraunhofer IAIS’s report «Trustworty use of AI»).

 Essential idea of that proposals - drawing from the deep technical expertise of the computing community, to provide to policy leaders and stakeholders nonpartisan theses on policy gaps in the field of neuroethics, development and implementation of ML/AI tools. It is preferable that this regulation be a harmonious symbiosis of legal norms both at the state level and at the level of socially responsible professional communities.

The approach mentioned in paragraph 6.2 of The CEN-CENELEC Focus Group Report: Road Map on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and, in fact, focused on autonomous self-regulation of AI tools (systems) seems inappropriate to current risks and treats: “An alternative approach is that the system itself ensures that modifications of its functionality due to self-learning have no negative impact on assessment topics like safety or fairness”.  Further, in the same place, the potential ineffectiveness of the certification system for AI tools is actually recognized: “For artificial intelligence systems that learn as they are used, the problem is that the behavior of the system changes continuously and will require a new conformity assessment each time.”

В ходе учебной практики, при обучении по специальности «Информационные системы и программирование», научным руководителем поставлена задача формирования устойчивого понимания понятия информационного продукта, а также методик и стандартов, касающихся организации жизненного цикла информационных продуктов в актуальной области прорывного технологического развития – сфере создания и практического применения инструментов искусственного интеллекта.