Innovation, Quantum-AI Technology & Law

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

Blog over juridische, sociale, ethische en policy aspecten van Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum Computing, Sensing & Communication, Augmented Reality en Robotica, Big Data Wetgeving en Machine Learning Regelgeving. Kennisartikelen inzake de EU AI Act, de Data Governance Act, cloud computing, algoritmes, privacy, virtual reality, blockchain, robotlaw, smart contracts, informatierecht, ICT contracten, online platforms, apps en tools. Europese regels, auteursrecht, chipsrecht, databankrechten en juridische diensten AI recht.

Berichten met de tag AI
CIGI Publishes Global Quantum Policy Brief by Mauritz Kop and Tracey Forrest

Waterloo, 5 February 2026—The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) has published a new policy brief, Global Quantum Governance: From Principles to Practice, authored by Mauritz Kop and Tracey Forrest. The brief is written for policy makers, regulators, standards bodies, and industry actors facing a practical transition: quantum technologies are moving from laboratory milestones toward deployment pathways where governance choices—especially around cybersecurity and cross-border infrastructure—become difficult to reverse.

Download the Policy Brief here: https://www.cigionline.org/documents/3746/PB_No.222_Kop_and_Forrest.pdf

Why this brief on quantum governance, and why now

The brief’s central timing claim is that near-term milestones—particularly post-quantum cryptography (PQC) migration and quantum networking—create a governance tipping point. After that point, certain security and societal harms may be costly (or impossible) to remediate. In the brief’s framing, PQC migration is not merely an engineering update; it is a “temporal rights and resilience” imperative because present-day decisions about crypto-agility, key life-cycle management, and data minimization determine whether sensitive data remains protected against future adversaries.

This urgency is paired with a structural diagnosis: national initiatives—including the EU’s proposed Quantum Act—are important, but insufficient on their own given quantum’s dual-use characteristics, global supply chains, and asymmetric capabilities across states and firms. The authors argue for a governance architecture that is “standards-first” and internationally coordinated, capable of sustaining what they call “security-sufficient openness,” and overseen by an International Quantum Agency.

The brief’s recommendations in practical terms

The brief concludes with a multi-pronged path “from principles to practice,” emphasizing four implementable priorities:

  1. Strengthen foundations through standards and PQC execution: align cryptographic profiles across sectors; update procurement so crypto-agility, key life-cycle management, and “harvest now, decrypt later” mitigation become baseline requirements; and adopt “cryptographic resilience” via agile standards, testing, and incident playbooks.

  2. Harmonize among allies: coordinate export controls, investment screening, and supply-chain security via mechanisms such as a proposed G7 Quantum Technology Point of Contact Group and narrowly scoped license-exception approaches in Five Eyes/AUKUS-style arrangements, while avoiding poorly designed measures that impose high compliance costs and chill benign collaboration.

  3. Incentivize global collaboration and capacity building: federate national quantum clouds, SDG-oriented demonstrators, and regional test networks under common governance rules; and consider, longer-term, a “CERN for Quantum” that provides shared access anchored in transparency and equitable access, including for Global South partners.

  4. Institutionalize foresight and bounded algorithmic regulation: resource international foresight capacities—within an IQA-type body or linked observatories—to update risk scenarios and stress-test legal frameworks, while experimenting with limited, well-governed AI-assisted monitoring and red-teaming to inform accountable human decision makers.

Takeaway for AIRecht’s readership

For legal and policy practitioners, the brief’s message is that quantum governance is entering a phase where operational artifacts—standards, benchmarks, procurement baselines, and interoperability profiles—will increasingly determine real-world rights, liabilities, and security outcomes. PQC migration and quantum networking are treated as the near-term proving ground for whether democracies can coordinate “security-sufficient openness” at scale.

For innovators and investors, the brief underscores that governance is not a brake on quantum progress but a design constraint that—if addressed early—can preserve global interoperability, reduce fragmentation, and support responsible diffusion of quantum capability without deepening geopolitical divides.

Meer lezen
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
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
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:

  1. Disclose training data used, including copyrighted music or texts.

  2. Maintain policies ensuring compliance with EU copyright law.

  3. 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:

  1. Privacy rights under EU law (Article 8 ECHR).

  2. Personality rights.

  3. 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:

  1. Clearly define rights in AI-generated music contractually and update existing music contracts.

  2. Specify permissions (licenses) and restrictions (opt-out) regarding AI training explicitly.

  3. 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
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
Celebrating the Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Consort Camilla at the British Consulate General Team in San Francisco

Around coronation weekend in May 2023—as King Charles III and Queen Camilla were crowned at Westminster Abbey—the British Consulate General in San Francisco hosted a coronation celebration at Grace Cathedral. The afternoon paired royal pageantry, screened from London, with a performance by the Saint Helena Unified School District choir. It was also, for the diplomats and scientists present, an unstructured space in which the governance of emerging technology could be raised informally—a cultural moment that doubled as quiet science diplomacy.

A celebration that became a conversation

Stanford legal scholar Mauritz Kop, who works on responsible quantum technology and trustworthy artificial intelligence, used the gathering to discuss pathways toward responsible quantum technology (RQT) and trustworthy AI with government representatives from an array of countries. Consular receptions rarely produce communiqués; what they produce is shared vocabulary and durable relationships—the connective tissue on which later cooperation depends. A coronation party is, on its surface, a cultural moment; for the people in the room, it was also a rare unstructured setting in which the substance of technology policy could be raised without the apparatus of a formal summit.

Science diplomacy, defined

Science diplomacy is the deliberate use of scientific cooperation to build relationships and inform policy across borders. The questions raised that afternoon were genuinely interdisciplinary: because an arbitrary unknown quantum state cannot be perfectly copied—the no-cloning theorem—quantum technologies reshape what secure communication and intercept attacks can even mean, with direct consequences for cryptography, security, and the legal frameworks that must keep pace. Raising such questions with diplomats from several governments, in a room built for conversation rather than negotiation, is exactly how interdisciplinary governance work begins.

The hosts and the guests

Among the representatives present were Dutch Innovation Consul Walter de Wit and Consul General Dirk Janssen. The event was organized by the UK Science & Innovation Network; Kop thanked Joe White MBE, then His Majesty's Consul General in San Francisco, and Florence Chaverneff of the Network, for convening it. The lesson is a small one with large implications: a guest list is also an agenda, and cultural occasions are among the better instruments of technology diplomacy.

Why it matters

Responsible quantum technology and trustworthy AI will not be governed by any country acting alone, but by networks of people who trust one another enough to disagree productively. Those networks are sometimes built in conference halls and sometimes in a cathedral, on a celebratory afternoon—between a screening of a coronation and a choir's last song. Read alongside the formal record of conferences and consultations, the afternoon is a reminder that some of the most consequential governance work happens in the margins of cultural events. Related reading: AIRecht's coverage of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology.

Meer lezen
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
Mauritz Kop Guest Professor at US Air Force Academy

Colorado Springs, April 25, 2024. We are pleased to highlight Professor Mauritz Kop's recent engagement as a guest professor at the prestigious United States Air Force Academy on April 25, 2024. Professor Kop, Founding Director of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT), addressed talented cadets on "Models for Responsible Regulation of Quantum Information Sciences." The class was an integral part of the Law and Emerging Tech program, led by Professor Aubrey Davis.

Professor Kop's lecture provided a comprehensive overview of the rapidly evolving landscape of quantum technologies and the critical need for proactive, responsible governance, particularly in the context of global geopolitical dynamics.

The Quantum Frontier: Opportunities and Geostrategic Challenges

The session commenced by acknowledging the significant global interest and investment in quantum technologies, noting China's relentless advances in AI and quantum, particularly in quantum networking, which has spurred anxieties about America’s technological supremacy. This technological race brings forth a deeper, existential concern: the potential effects of authoritarian regimes exporting their values into democratic societies through their technology.

Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) and Its Operationalization

The discussion delved into the critical concept of Quantum-ELSPI (Ethical, Legal, Socio-economic, and Policy Implications), which must be proactively considered for any emerging technology. Quantum-ELSPI, he argued, should inspire the practice of Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT). The Stanford-led RQT framework integrates ELSPI perspectives into quantum R&D, deployment, and adoption, responding to the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) dimensions of anticipation, inclusion, reflection, and responsiveness (AIRR).

To make RQT actionable, Professor Kop introduced the 10 Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation, developed by his multidisciplinary research group. These principles are organized under the SEA framework (Safeguarding, Engaging, and Advancing Quantum Technology) and aim to guide regulatory interventions and cultivate responsible practices across precautionary and permissionless innovation systems. Operationalizing these principles requires continuous multi-stakeholder collaboration throughout the lifecycle of quantum systems, involving standard-setting bodies like ISO, NIST, and IEEE, and potentially new oversight mechanisms like an "Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI".

The Role of Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Education

Highlighting the importance of diverse perspectives, Professor Kop, who integrates his background in law, music, and art into his quantum work, emphasized the need to go beyond siloed approaches to solve the hypercomplex matters arising from quantum technology. He referenced the Stanford Center for RQT's work, its multidisciplinary approach to tackling ELSPI, and its mission to foster competitive, values-based, equitable quantum ecosystems. Initiatives like the annual Stanford RQT Conference and the newly launched Stanford Quantum Incubator aim to bring the quantum community together, bridge gaps between academia, government, investors, and industry, and promote quantum literacy.

Professor Kop concluded by underscoring the urgent need for developing robust models for the responsible regulation of quantum information sciences to ensure that these powerful new capabilities benefit humanity and uphold democratic values.

Meer lezen
Hoover Institution Invites Mauritz Kop to Speak on Quantum, Democracy and Authoriarianism

Professor Mauritz Kop Addresses Quantum Technology's Role in the Era of Digital Repression at Hoover Institution Workshop

Palo Alto, CA – April 22, 2024 – Professor Mauritz Kop, Founding Director of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT), delivered insightful opening remarks at a breakout session on Quantum Technology as part of the two-day closed door workshop, "Getting Ahead of Digital Repression: Authoritarian Innovation and Democratic Response." The workshop, held on April 22-23, 2024, at Hoover Institution, Stanford University, was a collaborative effort by the National Endowment for Democracy’s International Forum for Democratic Studies, Stanford University’s Global Digital Policy Incubator, and the Hoover Institution’s China’s Global Sharp Power Project.

The event convened leading researchers and advocates to map how digital authoritarians are innovating globally and to identify new strategies for ongoing knowledge-sharing and cooperation to confront this deepening challenge. The agenda focused on understanding how autocrats leverage emerging technologies—from AI and digital currencies to quantum technology—for social control, censorship, and to export their governance models.

Guardrails Against Digital Authoritarianism

Professor Kop's address served as a crucial discussion starter for the breakout session, which aimed to brainstorm how advances in quantum technology might alter the dynamics of the struggle against digital authoritarianism and to explore potential guardrails. His remarks underscored the profound societal impact of quantum technologies and the imperative for proactive, principles-based governance to ensure they are developed and deployed responsibly, safeguarding human rights and democratic values on a global scale.

Meer lezen
Harvard Petrie-Flom publishes EU and US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firms

Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center has published EU and US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firms on its Bill of Health blog—an op-ed co-written by lead author Suzan Slijpen, Mauritz Kop (Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology), and senior author I. Glenn Cohen, who directs the Center. It examines why firms building artificial intelligence for medicine face such a tangled compliance map, and what a better one might look like.

Two regulatory philosophies, one transatlantic market

The piece sets Europe's cross-sectoral instinct against America's sectoral one. An AI medical product entering the EU must answer to the Medical Device Regulation, the GDPR, and a sweeping digital rulebook that now includes the EU AI Act and the coming European Health Data Space. In the United States, by contrast, coverage is patchy by design: HIPAA reaches only certain entities and data, and the FDA regulates medical AI only where it fits an existing category. Each model has genuine merits and genuine blind spots, and a firm selling on both shores must satisfy both at once.

Where the law strains hardest

The authors are clearest on the cases that resist tidy rules. Adaptive algorithms that keep learning after deployment make it hard to say when a model has changed enough to need fresh review—an area where the FDA's 2023 predetermined-change-control guidance points a constructive way forward. Generative AI overtook the EU AI Act mid-negotiation, unsettling how foundation models are treated under a rulebook drafted before they arrived. And at the material frontier sit quantum- and AI-driven devices, with their export controls, fragile supply chains, dual-use questions, and intellectual-property and security concerns—the bridge from this op-ed to Kop's broader work on the quantum technology governance frontier. The lesson the authors draw is procedural as much as substantive: regulators must understand the tempo of the technology they govern, or risk writing rules that are obsolete before they bind.

Toward a workable middle ground

Rather than crowning a winner, the authors propose a mixed horizontal-vertical approach: keep the precautionary care for patient safety, keep the permissionless capacity to innovate, and tailor the result to the economic realities of health care—from clinical-trial costs to market licenses. Regulation that is sensible, practical, and sector-specific, they argue, serves innovators and patients alike; anything less is rendered ineffective fast. Readers tracking Kop's longer arc on responsible technology can also follow his AIRecht scholar profile, where the through-line from AI in medicine to the law and ethics of the quantum age is laid out across a decade of work.

Meer lezen
Mauritz Kop Interviewed by Al Jazeera on Responsible Quantum AI Computing at Stanford University

Al Jazeera English featured an interview with Mauritz Kop on responsible quantum computing and quantum artificial intelligence (QAI) at Stanford University, woven into a report from a Silicon Valley summit looking for computing's next breakthrough. Speaking in the spring of 2023, as a Transatlantic Technology Law Forum Fellow at Stanford Law School working on responsible quantum technology, Kop set out three themes that have anchored his work ever since: the societal benefits and risks of quantum computing, the need for guardrails for QAI, and his legal-futurist scenario of a Quantum Event Horizon.

Quantum technology arrives in public view

The interview's setting—an industry expo rather than a lecture hall—signaled how far quantum technology had already traveled from theory toward commerce. Kop's role in the segment was to translate that momentum into a governance question: what legal and policy architecture should accompany machines that exploit superposition and entanglement to do what classical computers cannot? The benefits, from quantum simulation in drug and materials discovery to advances in sensing, are real; so is the risk that fault-tolerant quantum computing could eventually undermine the public-key cryptography securing global infrastructure absent migration to post-quantum schemes. In quantum technology, the same capability that delivers the promise also carries the threat—which is why Kop argues the two cannot be governed as separate concerns.

Building the guardrails early

Kop's case for guardrails turns on timing. Quantum computing and artificial intelligence are each transformative; their convergence could compress the timelines on which human oversight depends. The remedy he advocates is to install safeguards at the design stage—through technical standards, impact assessment as a design instrument, and international coordination—rather than retrofitting them after deployment, when the cost of correction climbs. The Quantum Event Horizon names what those guardrails are meant to prevent: a threshold past which a quantum-AI system can no longer be brought back under meaningful human control. The concept is a design imperative, not a forecast—if such a point is even conceivable, the controls must precede it.

From research program to public conversation

What makes the Al Jazeera interview notable in hindsight is its moment. In the spring of 2023 the case for responsible quantum technology still had to be made to a general audience; the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology that Kop would found and direct was only then taking shape, with its inaugural conference held that year. Coverage on an international network helped carry the argument beyond the academy toward the citizens, regulators, and technologists whose decisions will determine whether quantum's next revolution is also a responsible one. The same conviction animates Kop's later policy writing, including his consultations with U.S. lawmakers on AI and quantum technology policy, and his profile of scholarship at the intersection of law, quantum technology, and AI.

Meer lezen