I believe that, in order to address the various corruption-related challenges within the European Union, a new system should be established, which I would call the Preventive Integration System. More precisely, this would involve creating a new institution responsible for monitoring activities and supporting oversight through artificial intelligence. Every company, bank, public institution, or other entity would be connected to this institution. At the same time, the institution would be legally required to protect the confidentiality and sensitive information of all connected entities, intervening only when there are indications of corruption or unlawful conduct. For example, a municipal employee may use a computer to process citizens' data. This computer would be connected to an AI-assisted monitoring system. If suspicious activity, unauthorized manipulation of data, or potential misconduct is detected, an alert would immediately be sent to the institution, which would then initiate an investigation into the matter. I am presenting this idea as a proposal, a comment, and a contribution to the discussion on improving anti-corruption mechanisms. I have research on a solution to the problem of the personal and moral nature of artificial intelligence.
From here we will break free from the cycle of corruption in all areas.
- Logga in för att kommentera
Kommentarer
The EU AI Act (Regulation EU 2024/1689) is now progressively binding, yet corporate compliance is still demonstrated primarily through self-assessment reports and paper files. Regulatory authorities have no independent technical means to verify these claims, and cannot access corporate environments directly due to trade secrecy and data protection constraints.
This is the gap I have been working on: translating binding legal obligations into technical requirements that can be verified without requiring companies to disclose trade secrets or regulators to access internal systems directly.
The approach covers the provisions of the Act that speak directly to a technical system rather than to institutional or administrative processes: Article 5 (prohibited practices), Articles 9 through 15 (high-risk system requirements), Article 50 (transparency), and Articles 53 and 55 (GPAI obligations).
Each provision is translated through a shared four-layer technical architecture:
- An interception layer positioned between the system and the user, inspecting outputs before they are delivered
- A rule engine converting each legal requirement into an executable trigger-predicate-enforcement structure
- A behavioral monitor tracking patterns ov
An interesting proposal. I think one additional aspect is organizational integration.
Even the most advanced AI oversight system will depend on clear governance, transparent workflows and well-defined human responsibilities. Technology can detect patterns, but institutions still need structured processes for validation, accountability and decision-making.
Perhaps the long-term challenge is not only building AI to detect corruption, but also designing organizations that can consistently act on those insights.