Why the legal definition of an AI system is strategic
Since the rise of generative artificial intelligence, one question comes back constantly: what is an AI system in the legal sense? Behind this apparently universal notion, each jurisdiction gives a different answer.
Europe, with the AI Act, has chosen a broad and detailed definition to regulate both providers and deployers. China prefers to target sensitive technologies such as deepfakes, generative AI, or recommendation algorithms. In the United States, each State advances at its own pace, from Colorado to California. In Asia, South Korea and Japan favor definitions inspired by human capacities.
These divergences show that the AI system definition is not a technical detail, but a strategic issue that determines what will be monitored, controlled, and sometimes prohibited tomorrow.
Europe and the AI Act: a broad definition of AI systems
AI system definition
The AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) defines an artificial intelligence system as an automated system, operating at different levels of autonomy, capable of adapting after its deployment and producing predictions, recommendations, decisions or content influencing a physical or virtual environment.
The techniques covered by the definition include:
- Machine learning
- Logic- and knowledge-based approaches
On the other hand, certain tools remain outside the scope, such as basic mathematical optimization systems, elementary data processing, or classic heuristic systems.
Actors defined by the AI Act
- AI provider: develops or places on the market an AI system.
- AI deployer: uses an AI system under its own authority.
- AI importer: introduces a foreign AI system onto the European market.
- AI distributor: resells an AI system without modifying it.
- Authorized representative: European representative in charge of compliance for a provider outside the EU.
This granularity reflects Europe’s will to regulate the entire AI value chain.
China: no unified definition, but targeted regulations
China has not adopted a single definition of an artificial intelligence system. Instead, it regulates specific technologies:
- Generative AI: production of text, image, video, or audio via generative models.
- Deep synthesis: audio-visual manipulation by algorithms (deepfake, voice cloning).
- Recommendation algorithms: systems directing the exposure of users to certain content.
Key actors are referred to as algorithmic operators or AI service providers. This fragmented approach aims to control the most sensitive use cases rather than to set a global definition.
United States: regulatory patchwork among States
There is no federal law defining AI. Each State advances with its own texts:
- California (AB-2013, SB-942): speaks of “generative AI systems” capable of producing text, audio, or video.
- Colorado (AI Consumer Protection Act – SB24-205): defines an AI system as any machine-based tool producing results influencing a physical or virtual environment. The law distinguishes high-risk AI systems when they participate in a substantial decision (health, employment, credit, etc.).
- Texas (Responsible AI Governance Act): for now, no precise definition, but a governance framework is expected.
Here, actors are generally called AI developers and AI deployers.
Asia: definitions inspired by human capacities
- South Korea (AI Basic Act): defines AI as an electronic system reproducing human cognitive capacities (learning, reasoning, perception, language).
- Japan (AI Promotion Act 2025): speaks of “technologies related to AI,” designed to reproduce human functions such as judgment or recognition. No actor is formally defined, the approach remaining principle-based.
These visions put the emphasis on analogy with human intelligence rather than on the technicality of algorithms.
Comparative table: AI definitions and key actors by jurisdiction
| Jurisdiction | AI definition | Defined actors |
|---|---|---|
| EU – AI Act | Automated system producing predictions, content, decisions. | Provider, Deployer, Importer, Distributor, Authorized representative |
| China | No unified definition; regulations by technology (generative AI, deep synthesis, algorithms). | Provider, Algorithmic operator, User |
| United States | No federal law; local definitions (generative, high risk). | Developer, Provider, Deployer |
| South Korea | Electronic system imitating human cognitive capacities. | AI provider, public entities |
| Japan | Technologies reproducing human functions. | No actor formally defined |
Toward a common AI language?
The comparison of legal definitions of artificial intelligence reveals a tension between two approaches. Europe favors a broad and encompassing definition, in order to secure the application of its AI Act. China and the United States choose specific frameworks, focused on certain uses or sensitive sectors. Asia, meanwhile, adopts a more philosophical perspective, close to analogy with human intelligence.
For companies, this diversity implies increased vigilance: a system can be considered an AI system in Europe but not in China or the United States. In the long run, the question is whether a common AI language will emerge globally, or whether regulatory fragmentation will remain the norm.
At Naaia, we support organizations in the deciphering of legal AI definitions and in compliance with multiple regulations such as the European AI Act, American laws, or Chinese measures. If you wish to anticipate these requirements and secure your AI projects, we are here to guide you.