Debate: Global Convergence on Generative AI
Date: THURSDAY, 13 JULY 2023
Speaker: Věra Jourová
Language: EN

I’m really glad that I can be in this discussion here. Of course, I am replacing Thierry Breton and Margrethe Vestager. I love them, but this is a great moment for me because, as Mr Tudorache said, this is about values. I have to say that whenever we discuss technologies we have in mind people, and this is also the principle which we try to spread all over the world, the democratic world. And this is also my answer to what Ms Van Sparrentak said, that she hopes that we are presenting and offering a European way of regulating and thinking about the things to the rest of the world. And this is exactly what we are doing through all those international fora which I described before. I think that the European Union is the best place to do it, because I think that we have the right instinct. The technologies are not driven by big money and an unscrupulous hunt for profit as we saw it and see it in the United States from the side of the innovative industry, and not at all being like China, which uses the technologies for the better control of the people. No: the European way is a human—centric way, and this is exactly what we are promoting and trying to push wherever we speak about these things, be it the United Nations, the OECD, bilaterals and so on. We try to enhance global cooperation, not global competition. It also applies for the Commission. Mr Breton and Ms Vestager are cooperating very well, and we are fine—tuning all the activities and events we do. Believe me, there is a very strong coordination and a high level of common understanding of what the right thing to do is. The right thing to do, in my view, is to do things early enough. And here I come to the code, which you were partly criticising, because the function of the code which we work on is to be quicker than the risks. And indeed the AI Act is and will remain the key piece of legislation which we will want to see, in good shape, soon in force. But before having that, and there is nothing else in it, we simply want the businesses and those who influence the development of AI to accept the principles which are already in the AI Act. So this is not confusing, this is not undermining, as I heard here, this is rather about doing something quicker. And by the way, the quick development of generative AI is an incredible experience or example of how quick innovations are, how much quicker than the legislation. I think this is a good thing that still we can capture this new development in the AI Act in the negotiations. I think that this has come at a good time. But again, we need something quicker. You know I am also responsible for the fight against disinformation. Well my big fear is that disinformation will be used in political campaigns before elections. And deepfakes are a really big danger. That’s why I am pushing the companies developing the technologies to yes, continue developing, but also make sure that you also develop immediately the antibodies, the medicine, not to unscramble the scrambled eggs, but to minimise the risks. And that’s why I am pushing them to label the production of AI so that the people can see that this is something which has not been produced by the people, because I still believe that electoral campaigns must be a competition of real people and not a competition of dirty methods and robots. So that’s why we push them to label. I think that we should make a big decision now, as Mr Polčák said, we should make very clear that fundamental rights are here for real people. I speak here about the freedom of speech. Let’s protect the freedom of speech – almost absolute in the EU, but let us protect it as the fundamental right of the real people. Robots should not have this right. It’s the same when it comes to copyright. Well, copyright is here to protect the creativity of the real people. So I think let’s also be principled on these things. This is the moment to clarify these basic principles. For the users, it’s important to see the label that this is the production of AI. And here comes also what Ms Glavak said here about digital education. The people are living a big part of their lives and their time in the digital sphere. So let’s also advise, let’s educate how to understand what’s happening to them there. And that’s why I believe that the request for the label, which will make clear to the people that this is the production of AI, has to be well understood. Speed is of the essence and responsibility is of the essence, and it applies to the legislators as well as to innovators. And when I discuss with the innovators, with the technological companies, I sense that there is some kind of Oppenheimer’s syndrome, I would call it. It was the Hiroshima process, a little bit connected with that. I think it’s stupid to make jokes about that, but I think that the innovators are aware, at least the main ones, that they have to take their full responsibility for the future. The difference between Kundera’s time and the new era will be huge, but I would not like us to draw apocalyptic pictures, not to legislate out of hysteria, but rather to use good evidence, solid analysis and continue what we are doing with a risk—based approach and making a distinction between the rights of robots and people.