IBM urges gov't to craft smart AI regulation

A high-ranking official of multinational technology company IBM has suggested that the Philippine government enact smart regulation as soon as possible to mitigate the risks and challenges that artificial intelligence (AI) may bring to private and public organizations.

In a statement on Monday, Arvind Krishna, chairman and CEO of IBM, stressed that AI is a profound opportunity as it enhances human productivity and unlocks an astounding $16 trillion in value by 2030.

He said AI will not only fuel economic growth and boost gross domestic product, but it will also offer a competitive edge to individuals and organizations who effectively leverage its capabilities.

Krishna said AI could also help address some of the most pressing challenges, whether it's pioneering drug discovery, improving manufacturing and food production, or confronting climate change.

“But, as with any other powerful technology, AI comes with the potential for both misuse and risk. If AI is not deployed responsibly, it could have real-world consequences — especially in sensitive, safety-critical areas. This is a serious challenge we must overcome, and it is precisely why we urge policy leaders to enact smart regulation now,” he said.

With this, the company official noted that they believe smart regulation should be based on three core tenets: regulating AI risk, not AI algorithms; making AI creators and deployers accountable, not immune to liability; and supporting open AI innovation, not an AI licensing regime.

He said regulators should regulate high-risk uses of AI, as not all uses of AI carry the same level of risk.

While some might seem harmless, others can have far-reaching consequences, such as propagating misinformation, introducing bias into lending decisions, or compromising election integrity.

“Because each AI application is unique, we strongly believe that regulation must account for the context in which AI is deployed and must ensure that the high-risk uses of AI are regulated more closely. This kind of smart, precision regulation works. There is a successful precedent. In semiconductors, we have never licensed the invention of new chips. Instead, we regulate when, where, and how those products are used. This helps promote both innovation and accountability. The same can be done with AI,” he explained.

For the second tenet, Krishna stressed that government regulators should hold those who create and deploy AI accountable.

“While governments play an important role, others must also bear a responsibility. Legislation should consider the different roles of AI creators and deployers and hold them accountable in the context in which they develop or deploy AI. For example, companies using AI for employment decision-making cannot claim immunity from employment discrimination charges. Similarly, if a software developer creates a financial algorithm that promotes fraudulent activities, they should be held liable for the potential harm it may cause. Let’s learn from past mistakes with emerging technologies, and find the right balance between innovation and accountability,” he explained.

Lastly, the IBM official underlined that officials should not create a licensing regime for AI, as an AI licensing regime would be a serious blow to open innovation and risk creating a form of regulatory capture.

“This would inadvertently increase costs, hinder innovation, disadvantage smaller players and open-source developers, and cement the market power of a few players. Instead, AI should be built by and for the many, not the few. To that end, a vibrant open AI ecosystem is good for competition, innovation, skilling, and security. It guarantees that AI models are shaped by many diverse, inclusive voices. Other governmental actions, such as funding the National AI Research Resource, could further help foster an open AI innovation ecosystem,” according to Krishna.

He noted that for over a century, IBM has been at the forefront of responsibly introducing groundbreaking technologies.

“This means we don't release technology to the public without fully understanding its consequences, providing essential guardrails, and ensuring proper accountability. Instead, we believe that addressing the repercussions of those innovations is just as important as the innovations themselves,” Krishna maintained.