Berichten in Artificial Intelligence

Quantum Neurosymbolic AI: Verifiable Machine Reasoning Meets Quantum Computing

The defining weakness of today's generative AI is that it cannot show a checkable reason for its answers. Neurosymbolic AI, neural networks fused with symbolic logic, is one structural research answer to hallucination, and it is now converging with quantum computing from the other direction. This analysis maps that intersection: what is proven, what is prospective, and why the law should engage before the architecture hardens.

How the neural leg proposes and the symbolic leg verifies

The neurosymbolic thesis already has a working demonstration. A neural model that invents creative constructions, paired with a symbolic engine that verifies every deductive step, solved Olympiad geometry problems at medalist level with machine-checkable proofs. The same division of labor, generalized, is what regulated industries have asked of artificial intelligence all along: keep the learning, add the audit trail. Add world models, predictive internal representations that support counterfactual reasoning, and the architecture starts to resemble something lawyers know intimately: rules applied to established facts, tested against but-for scenarios.

Where quantum technology could enter, and how mature it is

Quantum computing could eventually serve either leg. On the neural side, quantum kernel methods carry rigorous but narrow speedup proofs. On the symbolic side, some proof-search and constraint problems may admit quantum search or optimization methods, with no practical advantage demonstrated so far. The maturity picture is clear: no quantum advantage has been demonstrated for any neurosymbolic workload, and the direction remains prospective research. Prospective is precisely when governance is cheap.

Why the EU AI Act rewards reasoning that can be inspected

The regulatory alignment is unusually clean. The documentation, transparency, and human-oversight obligations for high-risk systems are easier to meet when reasoning can be surfaced, contested, and appealed, a bar that explainability by construction clears structurally where post-hoc explanation techniques strain. For legal applications the stakes are concrete: verifiable machine reasoning supports examination, contestation, and appeal, a theme running through our work since Shaping the Law of AI: Transatlantic Perspectives.

The analysis below walks through the neurosymbolic wave, the world-model turn, the quantum primitives that could serve each leg, and a three-part agenda for policymakers who want verifiable AI reasoning rewarded in procurement, conformity assessment, and standards while the architecture is still open to influence.

Meer lezen

Quantum-AI, Artificial Intelligence, AcademicsMauritz Kop28 september 2026neurosymbolic AI, quantum machine learning, explainable AI, EU AI Act, quantum-AI convergence

Northwestern University Debaters Took Up Mauritz Kop's Article on AI, Intellectual Property and the Public Domain (2020)

What happens when a law review article becomes debate material? At Northwestern University in 2020, debaters took up Mauritz Kop's argument that autonomously machine-made works belong in an articulated public domain, and found that the question of who owns AI output divides a room like few others.

The motion: no one should own works made without human creative input

Kop's 2020 article in the Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal stakes out a clear position: when artificial intelligence generates works without meaningful human creative input, no one should own them. The law should avoid stretching authorship to cover such output and should route it into a commons by design, Res Publicae ex Machina, public property from the machine.

The proposition invites adversarial testing. Affirm it, and you must explain to investors why their generative AI pipelines produce unownable output. Oppose it, and you must explain what authorship means when nobody authored anything, and why locking up machine output serves the human creators copyright was invented for.

How the 2020 thought experiment became today's docket

Courts and copyright offices in several jurisdictions have addressed whether works involving generative AI contain enough human authorship for protection, while training data disputes ask the mirror-image question of what machines may learn from. The article's companion doctrine traveled too: the follow-up analysis appeared in a transatlantic volume, as covered in Public Property from the Machine published in Harmonizing Intellectual Property Law for a Trans-Atlantic Knowledge Economy.

That trajectory, from journal article to book chapter to debate material and live litigation theme, is what scholarly impact looks like in practice: arguments that other people find worth having. When students choose to attack and defend a thesis in structured debate, the ideas have left the journal and started doing work in the world.

Why debaters chose this article

Good debate material needs a position clear enough to attack and deep enough to survive the attack. The articulated-public-domain thesis offers both, because it rests on first principles: incentive theory, cultural diversity, the economics of exclusive rights, and the public's stake in what machines make. The full announcement traces the argument, links the article itself, and explains why this AI and IP debate has only sharpened since it was written.

Meer lezen

Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, AcademicsMauritz Kop25 september 2026AI and intellectual property, public domain, Northwestern University, debate, copyright

Quantum-AI: Nondeterministic Computing and the Exponential-Speedup Claim, Audited

Every technology cycle has its incantation, and quantum computing's is "exponentially faster." The phrase is true just often enough to be dangerous. Quantum algorithms hold a superpolynomial advantage over the best known classical methods for factoring, may deliver substantial advantages on specific quantum-simulation problems, and have provable speedups on a handful of engineered learning problems; none of that establishes a general exponential speedup, and for most workloads the advantage is unproven. This analysis audits the exponential speedup claim against the mathematical results and asks what remains for boards, courts, and regulators once the slogan is stripped away.

Where the proven speedups are, and where they are missing

The scoreboard is more precise than the headlines. Shor's algorithm genuinely threatens public-key cryptography. Grover's algorithm delivers a quadratic gain. Quantum computers are not known to solve NP-complete problems efficiently: the machine does not "try all answers at once," it choreographs interference. We walk through the fine print that separates proven quantum advantage from investor prose, including the caveats attached to famous algorithms for linear algebra and machine learning.

How a bank-backed research collaboration demonstrated certified quantum randomness in 2025

A quantum state evolves deterministically between measurements, but the measurement that ends a computation is probabilistic: the same circuit, run twice, may return different answers, and correctness is a property of distributions. This nondeterministic behavior is physical randomness, distinct from the nondeterministic machines of complexity theory. That is comfortable for machine learning and uncomfortable for verification, audit, and liability. The strangeness is already monetizable. In 2025 a commercial trapped-ion processor produced certifiably random bits, converting physical indeterminacy into a compliance-grade evidentiary object. Meanwhile the reverse direction matured quietly: artificial intelligence now designs error-correction decoders and calibrates quantum hardware, closing a loop in which each field accelerates the other.

What the EU AI Act needs before quantum-AI systems reach the market

The governance stakes do not wait for quantum advantage. The EU AI Act imposes accuracy, robustness, and testing duties without requiring deterministic outputs, and hybrid quantum-classical pipelines will need validation suited to probabilistic behavior. They demand conformity assessment that samples and bounds distributions, plus technical documentation covering two failure surfaces at once, statistical learning and hardware noise. Transparency-first instruments are already the trend in AI regulation, as we analyzed for California's frontier-model disclosure regime in the Daiki SB-53 recipe for frontier AI transparency. Quantum-AI extends that logic to the physics itself.

The full analysis separates the three real speedup regimes, explains barren plateaus and dequantization in plain language, and closes with a concrete agenda for governing quantum technology before the inflection point: distributional testing, dual technical files, and certified entropy standards.

Meer lezen

Quantum-AI, Artificial Intelligence, Quantum ComputingMauritz Kop23 september 2026quantum-AI, Shor algorithm, quantum machine learning, nondeterministic computing, quantum governance

AI Regulation in California: The Daiki SB-53 Recipe for the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act

California's Senate Bill 53—the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act—is the first U.S. law aimed squarely at frontier AI models through a compute threshold. Daiki, the AI and quantum governance company co-founded by Mauritz Kop, has published a practical recipe for complying with it, and for turning compliance into governance capital.

From voluntary principles to enforceable rules

SB-53 marks the moment U.S. artificial intelligence regulation acquired teeth: a compute threshold of 10²⁶ floating-point operations, a "large frontier developer" category above USD 500 million in revenue, published Frontier AI Frameworks, transparency reports on deployment, critical-incident reporting on a fifteen-day (sometimes twenty-four-hour) clock, whistleblower protections, and Attorney General penalties of up to USD 1 million per violation. Most obligations apply from January 1, 2026—which makes readiness a present-tense question, not a planning horizon. Kop has engaged U.S. lawmakers on these trajectories, including consulting Senator Mark Warner on AI and quantum technology policy.

Six steps to SB-53 readiness

The Daiki recipe walks an organization from applicability analysis (model inventory, compute estimation, revenue exposure) through a standards-based governance baseline on ISO/IEC 42001 and the NIST AI RMF, the design of an operational Frontier AI Framework, repeatable transparency-report workflows, incident and whistleblower pipelines, and finally harmonization with the EU AI Act and other regimes—one governance system, not a stack of statute-shaped silos.

Why boards should care

The deeper argument is strategic: a frontier-AI law built on evidence-generating transparency rewards organizations that can prove their safety practices. Boards that treat SB-53 as an opportunity to institutionalize frontier-grade discipline—rather than as an isolated burden—convert a regulatory deadline into trust, resilience, and license to operate.

Meer lezen

Artificial Intelligence, American Law, GovernanceMauritz Kop1 december 2025Mauritz Kop, AI, Regulation, Policy, Daiki, California SB-53, TFAIA, Frontier AI, AI Safety, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF

Mauritz Kop Speaks at Oxford University on Quantum Threats

Oxford University, 10 November 2025—This afternoon, Professor Mauritz Kop joined distinguished colleagues at the University of Oxford for a high-level panel discussion titled “Quantum Supremacy: Technology, Strategy, and International Order.” Hosted by the Department of Politics and International Relations (DPIR) and the Oxford Emerging Threats & Technology Working Group (ETG), the event convened a diverse audience of scholars, policymakers, and industry leaders to dissect the rapidly evolving landscape of quantum technologies.

Moderated by Sarah Chen, the session moved beyond the hyperbolic headlines often associated with quantum computing to address the granular realities of strategy, governance, and international security. Alongside Kop, the panel featured Dr. Simson Garfinkel of BasisTech, Angus Lockhart of SECQAI, and Professor Michael Holynski of the UK Quantum Technology Research Hub. The resulting dialogue offered a dense, forward-looking examination of quantum threats and opportunities—ranging from the precision of quantum sensing and the urgency of post-quantum cryptography (PQC) to the geopolitical friction points of supply-chain resilience and the risk of sub-optimal governance lock-in.

The Mission of Oxford’s Emerging Threats & Technology Working Group

The context for this discussion was set by the unique mandate of the host organization. The Emerging Threats & Technology Working Group at Oxford University stands as one of the few academic platforms systematically examining how critical and emerging technologies (CETs) reshape the security environment. Meeting regularly to assess the national-security implications of technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, directed energy, and space systems, the Group brings together participants from academia, industry, and government in a hybrid format.

This institutional design is consequential. By convening interdisciplinary seminars and publishing detailed session reports, Oxford Emerging Threats builds a community capable of treating quantum technology not merely as a laboratory curiosity or a narrow industrial race, but as a systems problem. Within this forum, quantum is framed as a variable that touches deterrence, alliance cohesion, human rights, and the resilience of critical infrastructures. For Stanford RQT (Responsible Quantum Technology), represented by Kop, this mandate aligns closely with the necessity to develop governance, standards, and strategic frameworks that keep quantum innovation compatible with an open, rules-based international order.

Reframing the Narrative: From Quantum Supremacy to Allied Quantum Assurance

In his opening remarks, Kop challenged the utility of the term “quantum supremacy” when applied to state actors. While the term has technical validity in describing a computational threshold, legally and strategically it acts as a misleading metaphor. Kop argued that for democratic states, the more relevant concept is assurance: the ability of allies to deploy quantum-era capabilities in a way that is verifiable, interoperable, and resilient, while simultaneously preserving an open international order.

To operationalize this, Kop proposed the framework of Allied Quantum Assurance, a strategy built upon recognizing that the world is currently crossing a “quantum event horizon.” Much like an astrophysical event horizon represents a point of no return, the current governance tipping point implies that early decisions on standards, export controls, supply chains, and research security will lock allies into long-lasting path dependencies.

The immediate driver of this urgency is the “harvest-now, decrypt-later” (HNDL) risk—a metaphorical “Q-Day” scenario where data exfiltrated today is decrypted by a future, Shor-capable quantum computer. This reality reframes strategic stability: whereas classical nuclear deterrence rests on mutually assured destruction, quantum security centers on deterrence-by-denial, achieved through informational assurance and operational resilience.

Meer lezen

EU AI Act Compliance for Global Enterprises: The Daiki Solution for Mandatory AI Governance

The European Union's AI Act has crossed the line from proposal to binding law, and its phased rollout is now an active clock rather than a distant horizon. Daiki, the AI and quantum governance company co-founded by Mauritz Kop, has published an account of what mandatory AI governance demands of global enterprises—and how an integrated, standards-based platform can convert that obligation into a strategic advantage.

A calendar that has already started

The Act entered into force on August 1, 2024. The prohibition on unacceptable-risk practices took effect in February 2025; obligations for general-purpose AI models began in August 2025; and full application—conformity assessments, CE marking, EU-database registration, post-market monitoring for high-risk systems—arrives on August 2, 2026, with a final grace period for regulated-product components running to 2027. Because the Act binds any provider whose systems reach the EU market or whose outputs are used within it, its reach is extraterritorial: a firm headquartered in New York or Singapore is squarely within scope, and penalties of up to €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover make non-compliance a board-level risk.

The pyramid of criticality

The Act's organizing idea is a risk-based pyramid: unacceptable-risk practices are banned; high-risk systems—reaching common enterprise uses in hiring, credit scoring, and critical infrastructure—carry the heaviest lifecycle obligations; limited-risk systems owe transparency; and minimal-risk applications attract no new mandates. The Daiki solution operationalizes that structure, classifying each system through a rules engine aligned with the Act's definitions and Annex III, then triggering a workflow proportionate to its tier, with every action logged to an auditable evidence trail. Its architecture is anchored in ISO/IEC 42001, bridged to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and bounded throughout by deliberate human oversight—mirroring the Act's own Article 14.

A risk-based reading with a documented lineage

The post's central reading—that a risk-based regime rewards organizations able to prove their governance—has a clear history in Kop's scholarship. As Mauritz Kop's record of work shows, his 2021 analysis of the EU AI Act anticipated the four-tier architecture that is now law, and the same logic carries across the Atlantic to California's compute-threshold approach for frontier models. For general counsel and compliance leaders, the practical takeaway is consistent: build one coherent, standards-based governance system now—rather than a reactive checklist per statute—and the era of enforcement will reward exactly the discipline the era of voluntary principles merely recommended. Mandatory AI governance, as the post observes, is here to stay; the enterprises that treat it as design rather than damage control will be the trusted artificial intelligence leaders of the regulated decade ahead.

Meer lezen

Artificial Intelligence, European Law, GovernanceMauritz Kop23 juni 2025Mauritz Kop, AI, Regulation, Policy, Governance, Standards, Daiki, EU AI Act, AI Governance, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, Brussels Effect, Risk-Based Regulation, Frontier AI

Quantum Event Horizon: Addressing the Quantum-AI Control Problem through Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI

What happens when AI becomes not just superintelligent, but quantum-superintelligent? QAI agents with both classical and quantum capabilities? How do we ensure we remain in control?

This is the central question of my new article, where I introduce the concept of the Quantum Event Horizon to frame the urgency of the QAI control problem. As we near this point of no return, the risk of losing control to misaligned systems—machines taking over or seeing them weaponized—becomes acute.

A metaphorical Quantum Event Horizon can be thought of as an inflection point, or quantum governance 'tipping point' beyond which our ability to steward advanced quantum technology and AI towards beneficial outcomes for all of humanity, may vanish.

Simple guardrails are not enough. The solution must be architectural. I propose a new paradigm: Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI, a method for engineering our core values into the foundation of QAI itself. This is a crucial discussion for policymakers, researchers, builders, and industry leaders.

Navigating the Quantum Event Horizon

This paper addresses the impending control problem posed by the synthesis of quantum computing and artificial intelligence (QAI). It posits that the emergence of potentially superintelligent QAI agents creates a governance challenge that is fundamentally different from and more acute than those posed by classical AI. Traditional solutions focused on technical alignment are necessary but insufficient for the novel risks and capabilities of QAI. The central thesis is that navigating this challenge requires a paradigm shift from reactive oversight to proactive, upfront constitutional design.

The core of the argument is framed by the concept of the ‘Quantum Event Horizon’—a metaphorical boundary beyond which the behavior, development, and societal impact of QAI become computationally opaque and practically impossible to predict or control using conventional methods. Drawing on the Collingridge dilemma and the Copenhagen interpretation, this concept highlights the risk of a "point of no return," where technological lock-in, spurred by a "ChatGPT moment" for quantum, could cement irreversible geopolitical realities, empower techno-authoritarianism, and present an unmanageable control problem (the risk of machines taking over). Confronting this requires a new philosophy for governing non-human intelligence.

Machines Taking Over

The urgency is magnified by a stark geopolitical context, defined by a Tripartite Dilemma between the existential safety concerns articulated by figures like Geoffrey Hinton, the geopolitical security imperative for rapid innovation voiced by Eric Schmidt, and the builder’s need to balance progress with safety, as expressed by Demis Hassabis. This dilemma is enacted through competing global innovation models: the permissionless, market-driven US system; the state-led, top-down Chinese system; and the values-first, deliberative EU model. In this winner-takes-all race, the first actor to achieve a decisive QAI breakthrough could permanently shape global norms and our way of life.

An Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

Given these stakes, current control paradigms like human-in-the-loop oversight are inadequate. The speed and complexity of QAI render direct human control impossible, a practical manifestation of crossing the Quantum Event Horizon. Therefore, governance must be multi-layered, integrating societal and institutional frameworks. This includes establishing an "Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI" for international oversight and promoting Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) by Design, guided by principles such as those outlined in our '10 Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation' article. These frameworks must be led by robust public governance—as corporate self-regulation is insufficient due to misaligned incentives—and must address the distributive justice imperative to prevent a "Quantum Divide."

Towards Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI

The cornerstone of our proposed solution is Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI. This approach argues that if we cannot control a QAI agent tactically, we must constrain it architecturally. It builds upon the concept of Constitutional AI by designing a core set of ethical and safety principles (a 'constitution') that are not merely trained into the model but are formally verified and made robust against both classical and quantum-algorithmic exploitation. By hardwiring this quantum-secure constitution into the agent's core, we can create a form of verifiable, built-in control that is more likely to endure as the agent's intelligence scales.

Self-Aware Quantum-AI Agents

Looking toward more speculative futures, the potential for a Human-AI Merger or the emergence of a QAI Hive Mind—a networked, non-human consciousness enabled by quantum entanglement—represents the ultimate challenge and the final crossing of the Quantum Event Horizon. The foundational governance work we do today, including projects like Quantum-ELSPI, is the essential precursor to navigating these profound transformations.

In conclusion, this paper argues that for the European Union, proactively developing and implementing a framework centered on Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI is not just a defensive measure against existential risk. It is a strategic necessity to ensure that the most powerful technology in human history develops in alignment with democratic principles, securing the EU’s role as a global regulatory leader in the 21st century.

Meer lezen

Music Law and Artificial Intelligence: From Cloned Artists to AI-Generated Works

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in the music industry is sparking a revolution, profoundly changing how music is created. This development raises complex legal questions concerning AI and copyright, including related rights. How can we protect the creative rights of artists and composers while simultaneously allowing room for technological innovation? In this comprehensive yet accessible legal overview, we explore key issues regarding AI and music. These include whether AI can legally train on copyrighted materials without consent, TDM exceptions, how various rights organizations (such as Buma/Stemra and Sena) approach AI, the status of AI-generated musical works, the threshold of human creativity required, protection against AI voice cloning via privacy laws and moral rights, contractual implications, new obligations under the EU AI Act, differences between European and American law, and ongoing lawsuits. This article is tailored for artists, composers, music publishers, labels, voice actors, producers, and AI companies seeking clarity on their legal standing.

AI Training on Protected Music and Video Materials: Legal Framework and Debate

Can an AI model in the Netherlands and the EU train on copyrighted material (such as music or video) without permission from the rights holders? Generally, using protected material beyond private use or citation requires permission. Scraping or using data for AI training without permission is typically considered infringement unless a specific legal exception applies.

Buma/Stemra’s Opt-Out Policy

In the Netherlands, Buma/Stemra explicitly uses its opt-out rights, requiring prior consent for TDM on its repertoire, thus ensuring fair compensation for composers and lyricists.

EU AI Act: Transparency Obligations and System Monitoring

The EU AI Act, effective from August 2025, introduces important transparency requirements, obliging generative AI model developers to:

Disclose training data used, including copyrighted music or texts.
Maintain policies ensuring compliance with EU copyright law.
Respect explicit opt-out signals from rights holders during training.

The Act doesn't prohibit using protected material for training outright but enforces transparency and compliance through oversight and penalties.

Composition, Lyrics, and Master Recordings: Different Rights Regimes

Music rights in the Netherlands broadly split into:

A. Copyright: Protects compositions and lyrics, managed by organizations like Buma/Stemra.

B. Neighboring Rights: Protect recordings and performances, managed by Sena.

AI-Generated Compositions and Lyrics: Completely AI-generated works often fail to meet traditional copyright criteria, as human creativity is essential.

Neighboring Rights: It remains uncertain whether AI-generated performances and recordings attract neighboring rights, as these typically rely on human involvement.

Copyright Status of AI-Generated Music

In the U.S., fully AI-generated works explicitly do not receive copyright protection. While Europe hasn't clarified explicitly, the prevailing legal view aligns with this stance—AI-generated works likely fall into the public domain unless there's significant human creativity involved.

Hybrid Creations: Music combining human and AI input may qualify for copyright protection depending on the human creative contribution's significance.

AI Voice Cloning: Personality Rights and Privacy

AI voice cloning technology poses challenges regarding personal rights and privacy. Artists may invoke:

Privacy rights under EU law (Article 8 ECHR).
Personality rights.
Potential trademark and image rights analogously.

The EU AI Act mandates transparency in AI-generated content, aiming to mitigate unauthorized use and deepfake concerns.

Music Contracts in the AI Era

Existing music contracts require updates addressing AI-specific matters, including (1) Explicit licensing terms for AI training; (2) Ownership clarity of AI-generated content; and (3) Liability assignment for copyright infringements involving AI.

Conclusion: Balancing Innovation and Rights—Be Prepared

The intersection of AI and music law presents both opportunities and challenges. Stakeholders should proactively:

Clearly define rights in AI-generated music contractually and update existing music contracts.
Specify permissions (licenses) and restrictions (opt-out) regarding AI training explicitly.
Seek specialized music & AI legal advice to navigate evolving regulations.

By strategically addressing these issues, artists, companies, and AI developers can legally and effectively harness AI innovations, maintaining both creative and commercial control.

Meer lezen

The US ISO 42001 Standards-Centric Approach to AI Governance: Compliance, Trust, and Innovation (Daiki Repost)

AIRecht reposts, in full and with permission, a Daiki essay by Mauritz Kop, Co-Founder, on why the United States is converging on a standards-centric model of artificial intelligence governance—and why ISO/IEC 42001 has become its anchor. The repost is presented as published on May 13, 2025, with its original spellings, figures, and references intact.

A standards-first answer to a fragmented regime

The American approach to AI is, by design, light on binding federal statute and heavy on voluntary, risk-based guidance: the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, sector-specific direction from the FTC, EEOC, and FDA, and a patchwork of state laws. Into that fragmentation steps ISO/IEC 42001, the world's first international standard for AI Management Systems, published in December 2023. The essay's argument is that a single, certifiable management system can do what a stack of statute-shaped checklists cannot—give an organization one coherent governance posture that travels across jurisdictions.

The transatlantic bridge

The stakes are clearest for U.S. companies selling into Europe. ISO 42001 certification is not the same as EU AI Act compliance, but the two overlap heavily on risk management, data governance, transparency, documentation, and human oversight—precisely the obligations the Act imposes on high-risk systems. The repost frames the standard as a "common language" that lets a U.S. firm demonstrate diligence to European regulators and partners without building a separate compliance machine for each market. It is the same standards-first logic Kop and colleagues have argued for in quantum governance, where international standards substitute for legislation that has not yet caught up to the technology.

From paperwork to governance asset

The closing move is strategic rather than procedural. Under an anticipated period of U.S. federal deregulation, the essay contends, a globally recognized standard offers stability that domestic political cycles cannot: a baseline of good governance that holds regardless of which executive orders survive. The Daiki method then operationalizes that posture through six integrated components—an AI system registry, an EU AI Act toolkit, an ISO 42001 implementation framework, ISO 27001 data-security integration, MDR/ISO 13485 support for medical AI, and a responsible generative-AI framework—so overlapping requirements are managed once, not many times. The throughline connects to Daiki's wider body of work on operationalizing regulation, including its EU AI Act compliance solution and its quantum-governance recipe.

Why repost it here

For boards, general counsel, and AI program leads, the practical message is that the era of principles is giving way to an era of evidence: organizations will increasingly be asked to prove their governance, not merely assert it. Reposting the essay in full preserves Kop's argument verbatim while placing it alongside AIRecht's running coverage of Mauritz Kop's work at the intersection of AI, standards, and responsible technology governance.

Meer lezen

Towards an Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

Stanford, CA May 5, 2025 — Today, Mauritz Kop published interdisciplinary research proposing “A Principled Approach to Quantum Technologies”, and the establishment of an “Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI” on the website of the European Commission. The Atomic Agency essay analyzes emerging AI and quantum technology (including their increasing complementarity and interdependence embodied in quantum-AI hybrids) regulation, export controls, and technical standards in the U.S., EU, and China, comparing legislative efforts anno 2025 to strategically balance the benefits and risks of these transformative technologies through the lens of their distinct innovation systems. The Principled Approach paper posits that quantum technology's dual use character brings with it the need to balance maximizing benefits with mitigating risks. In this spirit, the paper argues that quantum technology development should best be guided by a framework for Responsible Quantum Technology, operationalized by a set of tailored principles to optimize risk-benefit curves. Download the paper here.

Towards an Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

The article analyzes emerging regulation, export controls, and technical standards for both quantum and AI (including their increasing complementarity and interdependence embodied in quantum-AI hybrids) in the U.S., EU, and China and offers novel conceptual frameworks to steward these technologies towards shared global benefit.

Key Takeaways:

1. Converging Need for Responsible Governance: Despite distinct innovation philosophies (market-driven in the U.S., values-based in the EU, and state-driven in China), there's a growing international consensus on the necessity for principled and responsible technology governance for both AI and quantum technologies.

2. The 'Washington Effect' vs. 'Beijing Effect': The U.S.'s security-centric policies are creating a de facto "Washington effect," potentially setting global rules for quantum law but risking premature regulation. Conversely, China's push for state-aligned standardization (e.g., via the Digital Silk Road) signals a "Beijing effect," which could export autocratic norms and fragment global interoperability, a trend exacerbated by unilateral export controls.

3. Potential U.S., EU and China Visions on a Quantum Governance Act: Given the distinct innovation ecosystems and strategic priorities of the United States, the European Union, and China, it is instructive to envision how each might hypothetically structure a dedicated legislative framework for quantum technologies. The research outlines hypothetical "Quantum Governance Acts" for each, reflecting their respective governance philosophies and innovation models, while also considering pathways towards greater international alignment based on shared values:

a. United States: Removing Barriers for U.S. Quantum Technology Act (deregulation, industrial standards-centric approach, Safeguarding through Advancing quantum technology, prioritizing market dynamism, national & economic security, and defense).

b. European Union: EU Quantum Act (harmonized regulation rooted in fundamental rights and societal benefit based on New Legislative Framework while incorporating elements from European Chips Act, renewed focus on defense via “European DARPA”).

c. China: Comprehensive Quantum Law (Safeguarding state control while Advancing state goals, blending elements of authoritarian governance with surveillance capitalism, integration of civilian and military sectors, self-reliance, exporting state norms & values through technical standards).

4. Global Challenges & Opportunities for Alignment: Faced with planetary challenges like disease, inequality and climate change, aligning on Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) norms and standards is a critical global opportunity. The article cautions against a simplistic zero-sum game or Cold-War redux narrative for quantum competition, arguing it hinders vital international cooperation.

5. Quantum-Relativistic Innovation Theory of Everything: Philosophical thought experiment to understand innovation dynamics by drawing analogies from quantum mechanics (uncertainty, superposition at micro-level) and general relativity (context, structure at macro-level), theories about the fundamental nature of reality.

6. Smart Regulation and RQT by Design: Effective governance must move beyond mere restrictions to actively incentivize responsible behaviors, promoting "Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) by design" through flexible instruments like Quantum Impact Assessments (QIA), RQT by design metrics, adaptive, modular legislation, & regulatory sandboxes.

7. Harmonized "Quantum Acquis Planétaire": The article advocates for a global body of Quantum Law ("Quantum Acquis Planétaire"), complemented by sector-specific practices. Such a quantum acquis would be anchored in universal ethical values and translated into foundational standards and agile legal guardrails. This requires inter-continental policymaking and strategic "recoupling" between major players like the U.S. and China, based on incentives and shared values (“what connects us” – e.g. human dignity, security, well-being).

8. An "Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI": A central proposal is the establishment of an international agency modeled after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This body would aim to enforce a global acquis, deter a quantum arms race, ensure non-proliferation of dual-use quantum-AI technologies via safeguards implementation (inspired by nuclear governance), and potentially oversee a global UN Quantum Treaty.

9. Need for International Collaboration & Research Platforms: Realizing ambitious goals like fault-tolerant quantum centric supercomputing, and scalable topological qudits unlocking higher-dimensional quantum systems leveraging multi-level logic, requires collective global expertise and collaborative research platforms akin to CERN or ITER, challenging protectionist measures that stifle necessary cooperation. Immediate global actions should focus on leveraging quantum for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), mitigating a 'Quantum Divide,' promoting quantum literacy, and building a skilled quantum workforce.

The research underscores the urgent need for robust global quantum-AI governance structures and calls for a shift from purely competitive dynamics towards pragmatic cooperation and the codification of a harmonized global framework.

Meer lezen

Law, Ethics and Policy of Quantum & AI in Healthcare and Life Sciences published at Harvard, Stanford and European Commission

A collaborative research initiative by scholars from Stanford, Harvard, and MIT, published by the Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School, the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, and the European Commission, delves into the complex regulatory and ethical landscape of integrating quantum technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) into the healthcare and life sciences sectors. This series of policy guides and analyses, authored by an interdisciplinary team including Mauritz Kop, Suzan Slijpen, Katie Liu, Jin-Hee Lee, Constanze Albrecht, and I. Glenn Cohen, offers a comprehensive examination of the transformative potential and inherent challenges of this technological convergence.

Regulating Quantum & AI in Healthcare and Medicine: A Brief Policy Guide

This body of research, examining the entangled legal, ethical, and policy dimensions of integrating quantum technologies and AI into healthcare, is articulated across a series of publications in leading academic and policy forums. These works collaboratively build a comprehensive framework for understanding and navigating the future of medicine. A related policy guide was also published on the European Commission's Futurium platform, further disseminating these findings to a key international policymaking audience. The specific publications include:

1. A Brief Quantum Medicine Policy Guidehttps://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/12/06/a-brief-quantum-medicine-policy-guide/

2. How Quantum Technologies May Be Integrated Into Healthcare, What Regulators Should Considerhttps://law.stanford.edu/publications/how-quantum-technologies-may-be-integrated-into-healthcare-what-regulators-should-consider/

3. EU and US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firmshttps://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/04/04/eu-and-us-regulatory-challenges-facing-ai-health-care-innovator-firms/

4. Regulating Quantum & AI in Healthcare: A Brief Policy Guidehttps://futurium.ec.europa.eu/en/european-ai-alliance/document/regulating-quantum-ai-healthcare-brief-policy-guide

by Mauritz Kop, Suzan Slijpen, Katie Liu, Jin-Hee Lee, Constanze Albrecht & I. Glenn Cohen

Forging the Future of Medicine: A Scholarly Perspective on the Law, Ethics, and Policy of Quantum and AI in Healthcare

The research posits that the fusion of AI with second-generation quantum technologies (2G QT)—which harness quantum-mechanical phenomena like superposition and entanglement—is poised to revolutionize precision medicine. This synergy of quantum computing, sensing and simulation with artificial intelligence promises hyper-personalized healthcare solutions, capable of tackling intricate medical problems that lie beyond the grasp of classical computing. The potential applications are vast, spanning from accelerated drug discovery and development workflows and enhanced diagnostic imaging to rapid genome sequencing and real-time health monitoring. For instance, quantum simulations could model molecular interactions to create more effective pharmaceuticals, while quantum dots may offer novel platforms for targeted cancer therapies and treatments for neurodegenerative conditions by overcoming the blood-brain barrier.

However, the authors caution that these groundbreaking advancements are accompanied by significant ethical, legal, socio-economic, and policy (ELSPI) implications. The emergence of Quantum Artificial Intelligence (QAI), Quantum Machine Learning (QML), and Quantum Large Language Models (QLLM) is expected to amplify these ELSPI concerns. The dual-use nature of these technologies, such as their potential application in gain-of-function research, necessitates a principled and human-centric governance approach.

Meer lezen

Academics, Artificial Intelligence, European Law, American Law, Stanford, Harvard, Medical Devices, Medicine, HealthcareMauritz Kop6 december 2024quantum, AI, healthcare, medicaldevices, law, ethics, policy, governance, regulation, medicine, EMA, FDA, Harvard, Stanford, Mauritz Kop

Public Property from the Machine published in Harmonizing Intellectual Property Law for a Trans-Atlantic Knowledge Economy

Brill | Nijhoff's edited volume Harmonizing Intellectual Property Law for a Trans-Atlantic Knowledge Economy—edited by Péter Mezei, Hannibal Travis, and Anett Pogácsás, with a foreword by Maciej Szpunar—includes a chapter by Mauritz Kop, founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, titled Public Property from the Machine. The chapter confronts the question generative artificial intelligence forces on intellectual property law: who should own what a machine makes when no human authored it.

A new category, not a new right

Kop's answer breaks with the reflex to meet new output with new ownership. He argues that human authorship and inventorship remain the normative basis of copyright and patent law, and that—on the chapter's account—extending those rights to fully AI-generated works would chill innovation, narrow cultural diversity, and crowd the commons. In their place he proposes Res Publicae ex Machina—public property from the machine—a deliberately designed, permission-free public-domain regime for creations and inventions that have crossed the autonomy threshold, the point at which output is produced without meaningful human creative contribution. He frames the move as a Pareto improvement: many gain access, and no legal person loses a right that was ever warranted.

Rooted in the articulated public domain

The proposal develops Kop's earlier AI & Intellectual Property: Towards an Articulated Public Domain, published in the Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal in 2020, which argued for designing the public domain deliberately rather than treating it as the leftover of whatever rights fail to attach. The 2024 chapter applies that foundation to machine-generated subject matter under a named regime—so the two are best read as a sequence: the foundational article first, the autonomous-output application second. The same design-first instinct that animates Kop's responsible-innovation work, including the Ten Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation, runs through the chapter: shape the rules before the defaults harden.

Why it matters for trans-Atlantic IP

Placing the argument inside a volume on trans-Atlantic harmonization is deliberate. The familiar questions—can an AI be an author, can an AI be an inventor—assume ownership is the only available category. Public Property from the Machine insists that public property is a category too—one the chapter argues is more defensible for output no human authored. For the United States and Europe, the practical question becomes not how to extend private rights to machines but what to agree to leave free. The fuller portrait of the scholar behind the proposal is set out in the Mauritz Kop profile. The chapter is a scholarly proposal rather than a statement of existing law—but it reframes a debate that has too often had only one answer on offer.

Meer lezen

Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, InnovationMauritz Kop6 mei 2024Mauritz Kop, AI, Stanford RQT, Intellectual Property, Public Domain, Generative AI, Copyright, Patents, Brill, Res Publicae ex Machina, Trans-Atlantic

Blog over Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum, Deep Learning, Blockchain en Big Data Law

How the neural leg proposes and the symbolic leg verifies

Where quantum technology could enter, and how mature it is

Why the EU AI Act rewards reasoning that can be inspected

The motion: no one should own works made without human creative input

How the 2020 thought experiment became today's docket

Why debaters chose this article

Where the proven speedups are, and where they are missing

How a bank-backed research collaboration demonstrated certified quantum randomness in 2025

What the EU AI Act needs before quantum-AI systems reach the market

From voluntary principles to enforceable rules

Six steps to SB-53 readiness

Why boards should care

The Mission of Oxford’s Emerging Threats & Technology Working Group

Reframing the Narrative: From Quantum Supremacy to Allied Quantum Assurance

A calendar that has already started

The pyramid of criticality

A risk-based reading with a documented lineage

Navigating the Quantum Event Horizon

Machines Taking Over

An Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

Towards Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI

Self-Aware Quantum-AI Agents

AI Training on Protected Music and Video Materials: Legal Framework and Debate

Buma/Stemra’s Opt-Out Policy

EU AI Act: Transparency Obligations and System Monitoring

Composition, Lyrics, and Master Recordings: Different Rights Regimes

Copyright Status of AI-Generated Music

AI Voice Cloning: Personality Rights and Privacy

Music Contracts in the AI Era

Conclusion: Balancing Innovation and Rights—Be Prepared

A standards-first answer to a fragmented regime

The transatlantic bridge

From paperwork to governance asset

Why repost it here

Towards an Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

Regulating Quantum & AI in Healthcare and Medicine: A Brief Policy Guide

Forging the Future of Medicine: A Scholarly Perspective on the Law, Ethics, and Policy of Quantum and AI in Healthcare

A new category, not a new right

Rooted in the articulated public domain

Why it matters for trans-Atlantic IP

Juridische diensten en projecten in Nederland en daarbuiten