Artificial intelligence (AI) is not exactly one thing. Even though there are different ways of conceptualizing intelligence and there is no consensus on what it means, it is an interdisciplinary scientific field, which involves contributions from various areas of knowledge in a set of digital technologies. These emulate human intelligence to make decisions or perform tasks more efficiently and optimally.
The advancement of AI is a very strategic resource for countries, having the most diverse economic, political, social and cultural impacts. AI is revolutionizing markets and governments in unprecedented ways and has the potential to optimize a country’s economic productivity, with diverse applications in industry, markets and local and foreign trade.
This is why there is an international race to dominate AI, as it represents an important strategic resource for economies and markets. This race includes an important discussion to regulate, control and avoid possible negative impacts of this technology.
Several countries compose national strategies, which define the general lines of the design of artificial intelligence policies. These national strategies recognize the need for principles that guide government action with technology developers. These principles have been organized in international organizations such as the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the United Nations.
The principles are guiding principles and seek to define standards for developer behavior and for the use of artificial intelligence, with portfolios of policy instruments that will be played by governments to achieve mastery of AI technology. The four main instrument portfolios are financing, collaborative structures, governance and regulatory policies.
Comparing the different G20 countries, it is observed that the more these instruments are used within national strategies, the better the results achieved in relation to the process of technological transition and mastery of AI technology.
The diversity of use of instruments in different portfolios is critical to the quality of AI policy design and its effectiveness. The race for AI involves the leadership of the United States, China, South Korea, Germany, Japan and France, which build well-designed policies, which seek in a coherent and consistent way to employ different instruments that encourage the technological development of AI.
Brazil, on the other hand, is a curious case of a poorly designed artificial intelligence strategy, despite having the necessary instruments to achieve the objectives of technological mastery and development.
The Brazilian artificial intelligence strategy (EBIA) is not composed of a clear orientation to the industry and markets, but is understood as a “benchmark” of initiatives for the state and municipalities directed by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. It does not provide or say how the objectives will be achieved, defining short, medium and long-term strategic actions, being another corollary of unfounded principles.
Although Brazil is a case of not designing a national AI strategy, the country has different financial, governance, regulatory and collaborative structures portfolios, which are uncoordinated, fragmented and not made available in a consistent and coherent way with any objective. post. Brazil also has infrastructure instruments for research, creation of developer networks, information services and data access, such as “data lakes” of public data.
However, little progress has been made in the creation of collaborative structures that bring developers and industry together, that demonstrate to the industry the innovations produced in a coordinated and coherent way with the policy objectives.
Brazil is now discussing the creation of an Artificial Intelligence Law, receiving several contributions from the commission of jurists installed by the Federal Senate, after little discussion within the Chamber of Deputies. The emerging regulation points to a regulation based on principles that guide the application of strict liability to the industry in the development of AI.
Compared to the G20 countries, the Brazilian government lacks a clear definition of its policy objectives. The government knows it wants to get there, but it doesn’t know what the short-, medium- and long-term goals are, how to build a policy consistent with those goals, and how to consistently pursue the development of artificial intelligence.
The risk of being left behind is very high, with direct economic impacts, harming the productivity of the industry, preventing the creation of new markets and the risk of technological dependence that hinders Brazilian development. Although the country participates in the G20 forums, it lacks a clear governmental position, which signals the development of research and its application in the industry for the realization of public purposes of development and national well-being.
