Oxebridge’s recent post claims ASQ’s AI assistant “Quincy” likely violates the EU AI Act. While the blog offers its usual flair for drama, it misses critical regulatory, technical, and legal marks:
Misunderstanding the AI Act’s Scope
Oxebridge Claim: Quincy is a “commercial AI product,” automatically triggering obligations under the EU AI Act.
Counterpoint: The AI Act’s obligations vary by classification. A general-purpose AI tool used for knowledge support (not high-risk decision-making or biometric profiling) faces transparency requirements, not full compliance with provider-level documentation unless it’s an advanced foundation model. Oxebridge cites Article 50 but omits nuance around provider vs deployer roles, scale thresholds, and the functionality of the system in question.
False Assumptions About Training Data and Consent
Oxebridge Claim: Quincy’s training data must be disclosed, and users must be able to opt out.
Counterpoint: There is no requirement under the AI Act for deployers to disclose the full training dataset unless it involves copyrighted or high-risk data. If Quincy is powered by LLMs licensed through a third-party provider (e.g., Bettybot), the obligations may rest with the foundation model creator, not ASQ—especially if Quincy operates as a SaaS integration.
Oxebridge conflates the training phase obligations with deployment transparency, which are governed by different articles under the Act.
Ownership and Control Are Not Violations
Oxebridge Claim: ASQ didn’t build Quincy and thus can't claim compliance.
Counterpoint: Organizations routinely deploy AI via external platforms—what matters is transparency of use, disclosure of AI involvement, and user control over interactions. ASQ’s role as deployer obligates it to fulfill UI-level disclosures, not core algorithmic architecture ownership.
This framing mirrors the GDPR controller–processor relationship. The AI Act does not prohibit third-party integration, especially if contractual controls and disclosures are in place.
Conclusion: Regulatory Critique Requires Clause Mastery, Not Clickbait
Oxebridge raises valid concerns about AI transparency—but its framing is legally imprecise, technically misleading, and rhetorically loaded. If advocacy is the goal, it should be grounded in clause-level accuracy and provider–deployer distinctions, not sensational assumptions.