Inferential Capability Does Not Determine Legal Scope
Quick summary
arXiv:2608.10601v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it. Article 3(1) of the AI Act uses the capability to infer constitutively: it is the central feature separating the regulated category from conventional software. The GDPR never defines inference, yet governs it protectively: the consequences follow from the processing of personal data and from what the inference says about, or does to, a person, whether or not the technology that produced it qualifies as an AI system. The two perimeters are
Key takeaways
- arXiv:2608.10601v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it.
- Article 3(1) of the AI Act uses the capability to infer constitutively: it is the central feature separating the regulated category from conventional software.
- The GDPR never defines inference, yet governs it protectively: the consequences follow from the processing of personal data and from what the inference says about, or does to, a person, whether or not the technology that produced it qualifies as an AI system.
Why it matters
The significance is not only the legal text but how it changes product design. Decisions around “Inferential Capability Does Not Determine Legal Scope” may reshape data collection, model training, output accountability and market access.
Member comments