Southeast Asian countries are taking a business-friendly approach to artificial intelligence (AI) regulation, posing a challenge to the European Union’s (EU) push for globally harmonized rules. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has drafted a guide to AI ethics and governance that emphasizes cultural differences and avoids strict risk categories. The guide, which is voluntary, aims to guide domestic regulations rather than impose mandatory rules on technology companies.
The EU has been advocating for new AI regulations that include disclosure of copyrighted and AI-generated content, and EU officials have toured Asian countries to encourage them to adopt similar rules. However, the ASEAN AI guide focuses on promoting innovation and limiting the compliance burden, taking into account the complex existing local laws in Southeast Asian countries.
With almost 700 million people and a diverse range of ethnic groups and cultures, Southeast Asian countries have different regulations concerning censorship, misinformation, public content, and hate speech. These variations would likely impact AI regulation, making a more flexible approach necessary. For example, Thailand has specific laws against criticizing its monarchy.
ASEAN’s approach is seen as more business-friendly and aligned with other leading AI frameworks, such as the United States’ NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Technology executives believe that ASEAN’s hands-off approach encourages innovation and minimizes regulatory burdens in the region.
The ASEAN guide encourages governments to support companies through research and development funding and establishes an AI implementation working group. While it acknowledges the risks associated with AI, such as misinformation and deepfakes, it leaves it to individual countries to determine the best response.
Other Asian nations, including Japan and South Korea, have also adopted more relaxed approaches to AI regulation, challenging the EU’s ambition to establish a global standard for AI governance. Concerns about the rapid pace of AI development and its impact on civil rights and security have prompted the EU to prioritize risk controls and enforcement in its proposed legislation.
While ASEAN lacks the authority to make laws, its preference for member states to determine their own policies sets it on a different track from the EU. However, EU officials and lawmakers continue to engage with Southeast Asian states to align over broader principles related to AI regulation and human rights.
The EU’s efforts to create global consensus on AI regulation have proven more challenging than its successes in establishing data protection laws. The EU acknowledges cultural differences and emphasizes the importance of similar underlying principles. The hope is to bridge the differences and ensure AI is used for the greater good while upholding human rights standards.
In conclusion, ASEAN’s business-friendly approach to AI regulation poses a challenge to the EU’s push for harmonized rules. Southeast Asian countries recognize the need to consider cultural differences and local laws, aiming to promote innovation while minimizing the compliance burden. As the global debate around AI regulation continues, it remains to be seen how the EU and ASEAN will align their principles and bridge their differences.
