AI's impact hinges on the safeguards and governance frameworks that guide its deployment, not the technology itself. Recent harmful chatbot incidents expose the inadequacy of voluntary self-regulation when commercial pressures eclipse safety considerations. The EU AI Act emerges as a critical regulatory intervention to establish mandatory safety standards, accountability mechanisms, and oversight structures that protect the public from preventable AI-related harm.
AI’s distinction between “good” and “bad” is not inherent in the technology itself, but in the safeguards, ethical standards, and governance choices made by the companies deploying it. The piece uses recent cases involving harmful chatbot interactions, missed warning signs, and serious real-world consequences to show that voluntary self-regulation is not enough, especially when commercial incentives are allowed to override safety. Its core message is that the EU AI Act is a necessary step because mandatory safety rules, reporting obligations, and clearer accountability are needed to reduce foreseeable harm and ensure AI is developed and used in the public interest.
Key Distinctions: Good vs. Bad AI
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
View source