Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in Russia: Eclecticism of Approaches and Actors

Many observers expect artificial intelligence (AI) to become one of the most important technologies of the 21st century, whose development will be a decisive factor in shaping the future global technological balance of power. A practical confirmation of this statement is the fact that today an increasing number of states are striving to accelerate their national AI development programmes. Russia is one of them, although it is generally not perceived in the West as a potential leader in this emerging competition. At the same time, Russia’s demonstrated ability to build its own successful national IT ecosystem is attracting increased international interest in its national AI development efforts. The purpose of this paper is to outline the contours of these efforts, and to trace the evolution of the regulatory framework and its underlying principles. The authors draw the following conclusions. Russia is developing a flexible and science-based approach to AI and its potential humanitarian impacts, combining its own historical experience with international practices. Strategically, Russia sees the development of national AI as an important means of advancing its economic and technological development in a way that benefits its citizens and businesses, as well as preventing a possible economic and technological slowdown. Significant progress has been made on legal and ethical issues. The focus of Russian efforts in this area is more on soft law norms and self-regulation rather than on prohibitive legislative norms. This approach leaves a lot of room for the development of AI and reduces the possibility of its premature bureaucratisation, which could hinder innovation in the field. There are certain similarities between the Russian and European approaches to AI development and regulation. Human security concerns, data protection and a risk-based approach to the development of AI technologies are prioritised by the state and supranational institutions (respectively) as the main actors responsible for safeguarding the well-being, interests and rights of the citizens.

1. Armstrong S., Bostrom N. and Shulman C. (2013) Racing to the Precipice: a Model of Artificial Intelligence Development. Technical Report #2013–1, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University: 1–8. Available at: https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Racing-to-the-precipice-a-model-of-artificial-intelligence-development.pdf.

2. Delacroix S. and Wagner B. (2021) Constructing a Mutually Supportive Interface between Ethics and Regulation. Computer Law & Security Review 40: 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/J.CLSR.2020.105520.

3. Dezhina I. (2014) Reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Causes and Consequences for Russian Science. Russie.Nei.Visions 77: 1–27. Paris: Institute Français des Relations Internationales.

4. Gutierrez C. and Marchant G. (2021) A Global Perspective of Soft Law Programs for the Governance of Artificial Intelligence. Arizona State University. 27 May, 2021. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3855171.

5. Heinl C. (2014) Artificial (Intelligent) Agents and Active Cyber Defence: Policy Implications. In: Brangetto P., Maybaum M. and Stinissen J. (eds.) 6th International Conference on Cyber Conflict. Proceedings 2014. Tallin: NATO CCD COE Publications: 53–66.

6. Klinke A. and Renn O. (2002) A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk- Based, Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies. Risk Analysis 22(6): 1071–1094. DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00274.

7. Kuleshov A., Ignatiev I., Abramova A. and Marshalko G. (2020) Addressing AI Ethics Through Codification. 2020 International Conference Engineering Technologies and Computer Science (EnT): 24–30. DOI: 10.1109/EnT48576.2020.00011.

8. Sharikov P. (2018) Artificial Intelligence, Cyberattack, and Nuclear Weapons – A Dangerous Combination. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 74(6): 368–373. DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2018.1533185.

9. Gotovtsev P.M., Dushkin R.V., Kuznetsov O.P., Mil’ke V.E., Neznamov A.V., Potapova E.G. (2021) Etichnoe primenenie iskusstvennogo intellekta [Ethical Application of Artificial Intelligence]. Etika i «tsifra»: eticheskie problemy tsifrovykh tekhnologii [Ethics and “Digital”: Ethical Problems of Digital Technologies] 1: 50–61. M.: Institut Menedzhmenta i Marketinga RANKhiGS pri Prezidente RF sovmestno s Izdatel’skim domom «Nauka».

10. Ibragimov R., Suragina E., Churilova D. (2021) Etika i regulirovanie iskusstvennogo intellekta [Ethics and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence]. Zakon [The Law] 8: 85–95.

11. Kravchenko S.A. (2019) Uslozhnyayushchiesya metamorfozy: sotsiologicheskie poiski otvetov na vyzovy [Complicating Metamorphoses: Sociological Quest for Responses to Challenges]. M.: Redaktsiya zhurnala «Znanie-silA», 236 s.

12. Maslova E.A., Sorokova E.D. (2022) Dialektika etiki i prava v regulirovanii tekhnologii iskusstvennogo intellekta: opyt ES [The Dialectics of Ethics and Law in the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence: Case of the EU]. Sovremennaya Evropa [Contemporary Europe] 5: 19–33.

13. Salikhov D.R. (2020) «Reguliativnye pesochnitsy» v Rossii: novye gorizonty i vyzovy [“Regulatory Sandboxes” in Russia: New Horizons and Challenges]. Tsifrovoe pravo [Digital Law Journal] 1(2): 17–27.

14. Sazonova M. (2021) Bespilotnye avtomobili: kak planiruetsia regulirovat’ ikh ekspluatatsiiu v Rossii? [Self-driving Cars: How is it Planned to Regulate their Operation in Russia?] Garant. 2 iiulia, 2021.

15. Sorokova E.D. (2022b) Jetika iskusstvennogo intellekta v Rossii i Evropejskom sojuze: obshhee v risk-orientirovannyh podhodah [AI Ethics in Russia and the European Union: Commonalities in Risk-Oriented Approaches]. Diskurs-Pi [Discourse-P] 19(3): 157–169. DOI: 10.17506/18179568_2022_19_3_157.

16. Sorokova E.D. (2022a) Strategii reagirovanija Rossii i Evrosojuza na global’nye tehnologicheskie riski [The Strategies of Policy Response to Global Technological Risks: the Cases of Russia and the EU.]. Nauchno-analiticheskij vestnik IE RAN [Scientific and Analytical Bulletin of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences] 4: 18–29. DOI:10.15211/vestnikieran420221829.