What are the main differences in AI regulation approaches among the EU, China, the United States, and India as described in the chapter?

The chapter contrasts four regulatory approaches. The EU emphasizes transparency, accountability, privacy, and human rights through the AI Act and GDPR. China prioritizes efficiency and control, often at the expense of privacy. The US favors innovation with minimal regulation, risking oversight of bias and privacy. India focuses on AI for social good but lacks clear data protection laws.

According to the chapter, the EU leads in AI regulation, using instruments such as the EU AI Act to regulate high-risk applications and GDPR to set a global data privacy standard. China's approach centers on efficiency and control, enabling large-scale surveillance and urban management while raising ethical concerns about privacy and citizen rights. The US prioritizes innovation with minimal regulation, which can leave bias and privacy issues under-scrutinized. India is described as focusing on AI for social good and democratization, but it lacks clear data protection laws. The chapter notes that these differences reflect differing economic, cultural, and legal priorities and contribute to regulatory fragmentation that complicates global cooperation.