Nicola Fabiano

Alexander K. Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel et al.

Artificial intelligence poses many risks, ranging from familiar present-day harms to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic ones. Effective risk management requires prioritization: we must understand which risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable, and who is most responsible for addressing them. We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts. Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern. Experts estimated the five most severe harms in the next 5 years were likely to come from dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons & cyberattacks (including CBRNE), power centralization, and false information. In a business-as-usual scenario, experts judged 18 of 24 risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., more than 1 million deaths or more than USD 100B in financial loss) in the next 5 years (2025-2030). In a scenario where pragmatic mitigations are implemented, experts still judged five risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes: dangerous capabilities, weapons & cyberattacks, environmental harm, inequality & unemployment, and power centralization. All 24 risks were judged as being more than 5% likely to cause catastrophic outcomes. AI users and the general public were judged the most vulnerable to these risks, but experts assigned the highest responsibility for addressing them to general-purpose AI developers and governance actors (including governments, regulators, and standards bodies). Across most risks, experts identified information, finance, and national security as the most vulnerable sectors. These findings can guide AI risk prioritization and clarify expert expectations about who should bear responsibility for mitigation.

Nicola Fabiano

The imposing evolution of artificial intelligence systems and, specifically, of Large Language Models (LLM) makes it necessary to carry out assessments of their level of risk and the impact they may have in the area of privacy, personal data protection and at an ethical level, especially on the weakest and most vulnerable. This contribution addresses human oversight, ethical oversight, and privacy impact assessment.

Nicola Fabiano

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) establishes the world's first comprehensive regulatory framework for AI systems through a sophisticated ecosystem of interconnected subjects defined in Article 3. This paper provides a structured examination of the six main categories of actors - providers, deployers, authorized representatives, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers - collectively referred to as "operators" within the regulation. Through examination of these Article 3 definitions and their elaboration across the regulation's 113 articles, 180 recitals, and 13 annexes, we map the complete governance structure and analyze how the AI Act regulates these subjects. Our analysis reveals critical transformation mechanisms whereby subjects can assume different roles under specific conditions, particularly through Article 25 provisions ensuring accountability follows control. We identify how obligations cascade through the supply chain via mandatory information flows and cooperation requirements, creating a distributed yet coordinated governance system. The findings demonstrate how the regulation balances innovation with the protection of fundamental rights through risk-based obligations that scale with the capabilities and deployment contexts of AI systems, providing essential guidance for stakeholders implementing the AI Act's requirements.

Nicola Fabiano

This paper examines the integration of emotional intelligence into artificial intelligence systems, with a focus on affective computing and the growing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Claude, to recognize and respond to human emotions. Drawing on interdisciplinary research that combines computer science, psychology, and neuroscience, the study analyzes foundational neural architectures - CNNs for processing facial expressions and RNNs for sequential data, such as speech and text - that enable emotion recognition. It examines the transformation of human emotional experiences into structured emotional data, addressing the distinction between explicit emotional data collected with informed consent in research settings and implicit data gathered passively through everyday digital interactions. That raises critical concerns about lawful processing, AI transparency, and individual autonomy over emotional expressions in digital environments. The paper explores implications across various domains, including healthcare, education, and customer service, while addressing challenges of cultural variations in emotional expression and potential biases in emotion recognition systems across different demographic groups. From a regulatory perspective, the paper examines emotional data in the context of the GDPR and the EU AI Act frameworks, highlighting how emotional data may be considered sensitive personal data that requires robust safeguards, including purpose limitation, data minimization, and meaningful consent mechanisms.

Nicola Fabiano

We describe the Data Protection and Privacy Relationships Model (DAPPREMO), which is based on the set theory, considering that both the data protection and privacy regulation and Ethics principles in those domains belong to a set. DAPPREMO is a new and innovative solution to adopt a model in any data protection and privacy activities. We theorise that DAPPREMO is an innovative approach to have a broad overview of all the objects related to a specific case or more cases from data protection and privacy perspective. We describe DAPPREMO as a solution for a multidisciplinary approach to address any data protection and privacy issue.