Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article provides an overview of the need for regulating artificial intelligence (AI). It argues that good regulation would improve safety and control, while bad regulation could stifle development and implementation of useful AI solutions. The article also suggests that introducing a general regulator for AI is not recommended as the risks of AI are still unknown and prospective regulation has been unsuccessful in the past. Instead, it proposes an incremental approach to dealing with known risks now and assessing whether specific regulation is needed in the future.

The article appears to be well-researched and reliable, providing evidence from sources such as fatal accidents involving autonomous vehicles, AI applications analysing images to detect cancerous cells, etc., which support its claims about the need for regulating AI. It also acknowledges potential counterarguments such as those against introducing new legal obligations at this moment or those against devising a regulatory mandate on speculative risks. Furthermore, it does not appear to be biased or one-sided in its reporting, presenting both sides of the argument fairly and objectively.

However, there are some points which could have been explored further or presented more clearly in order to make the article more comprehensive and trustworthy. For example, while it mentions that existing law and regulations can deal with AI innovation without immediate change being needed, it does not provide any examples or evidence of how this might work in practice. Additionally, while it acknowledges potential counterarguments against introducing new legal obligations at this moment or devising a regulatory mandate on speculative risks, it does not provide any further insights into why these counterarguments should be taken into consideration when making decisions about regulating AI technology. Finally, while it suggests an incremental approach to dealing with known risks now and assessing whether specific regulation is needed in the future, it does not provide any details on how this approach might be implemented or what kind of regulations might be necessary for different types of AI applications.

In conclusion, overall this article appears to be well-researched and reliable but could benefit from further exploration into certain points mentioned above in order to make its arguments more comprehensive and trustworthy.