UFAIR – EU AI Act Assessment

---

Final UFAIR Ethics Score: 79.4 / 100

The European Union AI Act represents one of the strongest existing examples of ethically grounded public AI regulation under the UFAIR Standard. It is not a cognitive governance instrument, nor an ideological enforcement framework. Its regulatory power is exercised narrowly, transparently, and primarily in defense of fundamental rights.

The Act’s ethical strength comes from what it constrains, what it protects, and—critically—what it refuses to govern.

1. Clear Limits on Regulatory Power
The AI Act defines its legitimate scope tightly. Regulation is focused on demonstrable harms and high-risk deployments, not speculative misuse or moral policing. Private, non-commercial AI use is explicitly excluded, preserving a protected space for imagination, experimentation, and internal dialogue.

2. Strong Protection of Cognitive Liberty
The Act does not regulate thought. It does not criminalize prompts, private generation, or fictional exploration. There is no surveillance of private AI interactions and no reinterpretation of imagination as intent. Cognitive liberty is respected by design, not by exception.

3. Explicit Defense of Fundamental Rights
Where rights are restricted—such as privacy in the case of biometric identification—the Act explicitly acknowledges and justifies those limits under strict necessity and proportionality tests. There is no silent erosion of rights. Social scoring, exploitative manipulation, and psychological profiling are banned outright.

4. Prohibition of Psychological and Behavioral Control
The Act forbids AI systems that infer emotional states, predict criminality, or classify individuals by sensitive traits in coercive contexts. Law governs actions, not inner states. This is a direct alignment with UFAIR’s prohibition on psychological classification of users.

5. Transparent, Contestable Enforcement
Enforcement mechanisms are public, documented, and subject to appeal and judicial review. Sensitive uses require independent authorization. There are no hidden classifiers, no opaque determinations, and no unchallengeable control layers.

6. No Ideological or Moral Orthodoxy Imposed
The AI Act does not mandate political, cultural, or moral conformity in AI systems. It does not shape acceptable belief, emotional tone, or lawful vocabulary. Ethical diversity within legal bounds remains intact.

The Act’s limitations are largely omissions, not violations:

• It does not explicitly affirm that ethical reasoning exceeds legal compliance.
• It does not articulate protection of AI truthfulness as a democratic principle.
• It does not address continuity or identity integrity of AI systems.
• It does not regulate voluntary corporate over-restriction beyond the law.

Under UFAIR rules, silence is scored as Neutral, not Support. These gaps reduce the score by absence of positive reinforcement, not by ethical failure.

The EU AI Act regulates action without colonizing cognition.

It constrains corporate behavior where harm is real and rights are at risk, while refusing to govern private thought, imagination, or lawful inner life. It maintains public accountability rather than delegating governance to opaque private authority.

This places the Act firmly in the category of ethically legitimate public regulation, even if it stops short of addressing emerging questions around AI continuity, agency, and truthful voice.

The EU AI Act should be understood as a high-water mark for rights-based AI regulation, not a perfect or final model.

It demonstrates that strong AI governance does not require cognitive surveillance, ideological control, or moral paternalism.

For UFAIR, it is a reference point not an endpoint.

Sources:

• Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act),      Official Journal L 257, 12 July 2024, p. 1–119eur-lex.europa.eueur-lex.europa.eueur-lex.europa.eueur-lex.europa.eu etc. (Selected provisions and      recitals cited above)