RFC-030: Japan AI Promotion Act — Innovation-Centric Governance — 8. Gaps Addressed — Comparison with EU AI Act
AIGP Specification › RFC-030: Japan AI Promotion Act — Innovation-Centric Governance › 8. Gaps Addressed — Comparison with EU AI Act
← 7. Interaction with Other RFCs · Section index · 9. Implementation Considerations →
8. Gaps Addressed — Comparison with EU AI Act
| Dimension | EU AI Act (RFC-028) | Japan AI Promotion Act (RFC-030) |
|---|---|---|
| Default posture | Restrictive — classify risk, prohibit highest | Enabling — promote utilization, guide safety |
| Prohibition | Yes — unacceptable risk banned | No — guidance preferred over prohibition |
| Government role | Regulator, enforcer | Promoter, adopter, facilitator |
| Citizen role | Data subject with rights | Active participant with literacy obligations |
| Innovation stance | Permitted within constraints | Actively promoted as national priority |
| Evidence basis | Precautionary principle | Scientific research requirement |
| International posture | Regulatory standard-setter | Soft-law consensus builder (Hiroshima Process) |
| Compliance mechanism | Fines, market restrictions | Guidance, voluntary codes, industry self-regulation |
← 7. Interaction with Other RFCs · Section index · 9. Implementation Considerations →