Future Trends

All courses / AI Governance / Module 6 / Chapter 22

Learning objectives

After the lesson the participant can:

• Classify a statement about the future as observable, expected or speculation, using the chapter's definitions.
• Explain why the label determines how reversible the resulting governance decision should be.
• Identify the three dates that dominate planning under the amended AI Act and what each applies to.
• Draft a horizon register entry with horizon, affected artefacts, reversibility, decision and a monitored signal.

Key concepts

Three horizons

Observable covers developments visible in adopted legislation, published guidance, cited standards or production systems. Expected covers developments with strong evidence but uncertain timing or form within five years. Speculation covers what is plausible and consequential but not yet evidenced.

Reversibility by horizon

A governance arrangement built on a speculative trend should be reversible, while one built on an observable trend may be committed to. A date in adopted legislation is observable; a date in a Commission proposal is not.

Mode-change trigger

As vendors add triggers, connectors and background execution to assistants, the boundary between Modes 2 and 5 blurs. The classification triggers therefore need one that fires on supplier feature releases, treating each new trigger or agent mode as a mode change.

Decision record per grant of agency

The expected form of accountability for agents: the organisation can show the permission it granted, who granted it and the stop authority it held, as Hansa Mutual's records for its two agents do.

Horizon register

The outlook under version control: each trend with its horizon, the artefacts it affects, its reversibility, the decision taken and review dates. Its value lies in being wrong in a reviewable way.

Interactive exercises

Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.

Teaching plan

Discussion

1. The cost of a second round of simplification of the AI Act would fall on organisations that froze their programmes waiting for it. Why does the chapter conclude that, and do you agree?
2. An organisation that governs by product and not by use case will find autonomous agents nobody approved as such. Which products in your estate could gain triggers or background execution through a supplier release?
3. If supervisors came to consume machine-readable evidence, the evidence manifest would become an interface between the organisation and the state. What would you design differently today if that were possible?

Written exercise

Self-test

Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.

1. Which three dates does the chapter say dominate the next two years under the amended AI Act?

   1. 2 February 2025, 2 August 2025 and 2 August 2026
   2. 1 August 2024, 2 August 2026 and 2 August 2027
   3. 2 August 2026, 2 February 2027 and 2 December 2028
   4. 2 August 2027, 2 December 2027 and 2 August 2028
   Show the answer

   D. 2 August 2027, 2 December 2027 and 2 August 2028
   2 August 2027 for legacy general-purpose AI models and national sandboxes, 2 December 2027 for Annex III high-risk systems, and 2 August 2028 for high-risk systems embedded in regulated products. The chapter advises verifying the timeline before committing a plan.

2. How does the chapter classify the incorporation of the AI Act into the EEA Agreement?

   1. As expected within five years, probably with adaptations
   2. As observable, since it has already been incorporated
   3. As speculation, since no EEA state has shown interest
   4. As outside the outlook, since the EEA is not affected
   Show the answer

   A. As expected within five years, probably with adaptations
   Observably, the AI Act was still under scrutiny for incorporation at the time of writing. The chapter expects incorporation within five years, probably with adaptations, so groups keep one baseline with national overlays.

3. In the chapter's horizon register, what decision is recorded for the speculative trend of code-based supervision?

   1. Wait until a supervisor publishes a technical specification
   2. Give supervisors direct write access to the governance repository
   3. Design the evidence store as if an authority may query it
   4. Replace the evidence manifest with structured financial reporting
   Show the answer

   C. Design the evidence store as if an authority may query it
   The entry is marked speculative with high reversibility, and the decision is to design the evidence store as if an authority may query it, a step that costs little and can be undone if the trend does not materialise.