
Future of Life Institute
Independent non-profit maintaining an AI Act national-implementation tracker.
Future of Life Institute's AI Act tracker had Denmark, Finland and Hungary logged as designated by 17 June, weeks before Brussels' own contact register caught up when the Act's fining power began on 2 August.
Last refreshed: 4 August 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
Why is a non-profit's tracker more reliable than the European Commission's own AI Act register?
Timeline for Future of Life Institute
Recorded a conflicting designation count as of 17 June
European Tech Sovereignty: AI Act fines land on a stale registerBackground
The Future of Life Institute is an independent non-profit, not a European Commission body, working to reduce large-scale, extreme risks from transformative technologies through grantmaking, education and policy engagement. It is registered in the EU's transparency register under number 787064543128-10.
Its best-known public resource is the artificialintelligenceact.eu tracker, which monitors which EU member states have designated the national authorities the AI Act requires for enforcement. The tracker's country of incorporation and wider funding base are not established from evidence available to this page.
The institute's significance lies in occupying a gap the Commission's own administrative machinery has struggled to fill: a public, dated, member-state-by-member-state record of AI Act implementation that outside observers, journalists and regulators alike can check independently of Brussels' own register.
Its tracker beat the official register
The Future of Life Institute's artificialintelligenceact.eu tracker recorded, as at its 17 June 2026 update, that 9 of 27 EU member states had designated both national AI Act competent authorities required under the regulation, 12 partially and 6 not at all .
When the Commission's own fining power took effect on 2 August, its contact register still carried a September 2025 timestamp and blank rows for Denmark, Finland and Hungary, three states the institute's own count already showed as designated. The institute did not comment on the discrepancy; the gap sits in Brussels' paperwork, not its data.