Concerning the risk-based approach, the introduction says
Certain particularly harmful AI practices are prohibited as
contravening Union values, while specific restrictions and safeguards are proposed in relation
to certain uses of remote biometric identification systems for the purpose of law enforcement.
The proposal lays down a solid risk methodology to define “high-risk” AI systems that pose
significant risks to the health and safety or fundamental rights of persons. Those AI systems
will have to comply with a set of horizontal mandatory requirements for trustworthy AI and
follow conformity assessment procedures before those systems can be placed on the Union
market. Predictable, proportionate and clear obligations are also placed on providers and users
of those systems to ensure safety and respect of existing legislation protecting fundamental
rights throughout the whole AI systems’ lifecycle. For some specific AI systems, only
minimum transparency obligations are proposed, in particular when chatbots or ‘deep fakes’
are used.
The impact assessment says
Businesses or public authorities that develop or use any AI
applications not classified as high risk would only have minimal obligations of information.
Anything that's not unacceptable or high-risk would be in the third category. The regulation only defines prohibited and high-risk AI systems. It follows that the rest are considered low risk.
The proposal also contains regulations targeted at specific systems, particularly Title IV regarding transparency obligations, which must be followed by permitted non-high-risk AI applications.
