Artificial intelligence in Brazil: the Committee of Jurists episode

The Committee of Jurists of the Federal Senate held four debate sessions and heard 60 people about various aspects regarding a future Brazilian legal discipline of artificial intelligence. But what exactly is this Committee, who composes it, what is its objective, what is its importance? Even without simplifying the issues in the binarism between light and shadows, I will try to explain the basics of CJSubIA with a six-act allegory of the Star Wars saga, the work of pop culture celebrated every 4th of May.

I – The threat in the Chamber

Many bills have been proposed in Brazil to regulate the many issues of new digital technologies. Having Marco Civil da Internet as a common basis since 2014, new laws are necessary for a harmonious regulatory framework. In line with a global trend, Brazil is currently debating how to regulate artificial intelligence (or AI) research, development and implementation, in order to balance the guarantee, protection and promotion of human rights with the respect for freedom of initiative and the encouragement of innovation.

But a scare took Brazil when Bill nº 21, of 2020, was approved in the plenary of the House of Representatives, in September 2021, in order to “establish principles, rules, guidelines and foundations to regulate the development and application of artificial intelligence in Brazil”. Much criticized, the text is a tragedy, with economic, legal, political, social, philosophical and, obviously , technological. 

II – Attack of copies

The set of problems of PL 21/2020 can be explained by the perception that the approved text is a defective clone of other proposals, or a copy with only a technological shell, but without legal content. I consider it not a design error, but a deliberate product, that the original wording has been watered down and malnourished.

The fewer legal rules, the freer the market is to decide the focus of investments and research guided by private interests, without commitment to the public interest. Attracting foreign capital despite the long-term social and economic cost undermines the appreciation of sovereign objectives , and expresses a subservient posture.

III – CJSubIA of the Senate

In the Senate, the exaggerated haste with which PL 21/2020 was voted on in the Chamber was stopped. In February 2022, the President of the House instituted the Committee of Jurists responsible for subsidizing the preparation of a draft substitute for the bills on artificial intelligence (or CJSubIA), formed by eighteen specialists. The idea is that the Committee, chaired by Villas Bôas Cueva, minister of the Superior Court of Justice, will help the senators to draft a new text of law.

Installed on March 30th, CJSubIA prepared a work plan, scheduled to end on August 12th, organized in three stages: Installation of the Committee and public participation; Work meetings and international experience; Writing and consolidation of subsidies for the elaboration of a substitute.

IV – A little hope

Coalizão Direitos na Rede knows that the Senate’s Internal Rules determine that only people with legal training can be appointed, and values ​​the initiative to broaden the debate. But they did not hold back to point out the CJSubIA’s lack of representativeness, due to the absence of black and indigenous people, and regional concentration.

The Committee’s response was to convene twelve public hearings. In the personal chronology of many people, this was the first moment of contact with the legal debate on AI, and that is why it has a differentiated cultural importance.

Held on April 28 and 29 and 12 and 13 , the hearings were attended by 60 people (25% of them black: although this is a low number, it is a substantial advance). Videos with the entire hearing, documents from panelists and even shorthand notes are available on the Committee’s official page and on the Senate’s YouTube channel. (Disclaimer: I participated on behalf of IRIS in the third Panel on the 28th, talking about principles and fundamentals) 

In addition, the CJSubIA made a call for submissions. A few dozen have already been received, and the original deadline of May 13 has been postponed to June 10.

V – There will still be a counterattack

After the work of the CJSubIA is concluded, any interests – noble or shady – that have been overruled, will have the opportunity of revenge throughout the formal legislative process in the Senate. Defining the list of thematic committee that will analyze the text; then the rapporteurship in each one of them and the inclusion in the voting agenda; until the debate in the Plenary: there will be several moments of risk for a proper balance between fundamental guarantees and free initiative.

VI – Return of AI

At the end of this entire process, no matter how good the result, any new Senate draft bill will need to return to the House of Representatives. It is up to the reviewing house to hammer on which text to submit for presidential sanction: whether the 2020 text, or the substitute elaborated by CJSubIA efforts. In the best of worlds, the return of PL 21/2020 to the Reps. will be a feast with the delivery of medals and lots of partying. But outside of the fantasy, it might look more like a massacre of a peasant village.

Conclusion: next episodes

Throughout the legislative process, loyal disagreements about an AI legal framework coexisted with strong disturbances in the production of possible consensus. Politics has never been the exclusive stage of republican rationality, and whether due to the electoral moment, market pressures or other factors, the moods of the moment always weigh. It is important for the people affected to have their sensations, feelings and emotions taken into account, and not just disregarded as side effects in a logic of insensitive percentages.

In any case, even after the Committee concludes its work, the Senate approves a text and the House of Representatives has the final word in Congress, the regulation of AI will still have future chapters. Only from expectations around the presidential sanction, one shall be alert for vetoes, in addition to the doubt around who will sit the chair at Palácio do Planalto.

Recognizing the importance of CJSubIA’s democratic role and congratulating its efforts at plural participation does not imply any certainty about its success in contributing to a good piece of legislation. But it is in the face of such doubts that it makes a special difference to have faith. May the force be in favor of guaranteeing, promoting and defending rights!

The views and opinions expressed in this blogpost are those of the author.