Artificial Intelligence: Is the EU Delay Already a Political Failure? Urgent change of pace

Europe is accumulating delays on the Artificial Intelligence Regulation. Its a fact.

Of particular concern are the guidelines expressed by the European Parliament’s AIDA Special Committee in an effort to guide the process of legislative reform in the field of artificial intelligence through the development of homogeneous rules capable of ensuring its safe and secure development. in light of the observations formalized in the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence.

AIDA Committee on Artificial Intelligence

The AIDA Special Committee (Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in Digital. Age) – recently claimed launch a clear warning in the near future – something that today seems to be confirmed in the recent positions of the European Parliament – according to which the European Union “is lagging behind in the global struggle for technological leadership“As a result, standards are being developed elsewhere in the future, often by anti-democratic actors, and the EU must act as a global regulator of artificial intelligence.” This is recommended priority problem due to the fact that “artificial intelligence technologies could pose critical ethical and legal issues”, hence the need to ensure “responsible use of artificial intelligence” in the light of concerns about military research and development technologies in lethal systems “. .

June 8, 2022 – 12:00

Governance and data security. How to manage them better?

To this end, the AIDA Special Committee urges the European institutions to fill the existing gap in order to try to develop, in the shortest possible time, sufficient technological standardsintervening in advance from other countries, without permanently losing control of technological development, if the new “rules of the game” were set elsewhere, in the context of anti-democratic circuits and increasingly relevant factors in the development of emerging technology applications.

A holistic approach to artificial intelligence

In this perspective, the final report of the AIDA commission proposes an EU roadmap to artificial intelligence, under the banner of a “holistic approach“Able to formalize, through timely action that can no longer be postponed or extended further, long-term planning position is in line with the core EU values ​​that apply extensively and to tested and designed artificial intelligence in every possible area of ​​EU competence (green transition, health, industry, public administration, agriculture, labor productivity, etc.).

The main regulatory problems addressed

The report puts forward the main regulatory criticisms met with, stating explicitly that “current European and national legislation is fragmented, slow and lacks legal certainty, to the point of making it urgent to create a favorable regulatory environment involving dynamic legislation . process and modern governance “. In addition, the dangerous consequences associated with the military and security aspects of artificial intelligence call for a need for reaffirmation, even in a climate of international cooperation with other partners who share the same position, of a humanitarian vision based on European values.

A (very?) Prudent attitude

From the earliest stages of the process, the prudent attitude of the European institutions has emerged as a feature of the EU strategy: for the purpose of careful evaluation. the overall impact of artificial intelligence on the European Union ecosystem Various proposals were presented and examined in order to apply the ethical and reliable standardization of Artificial Intelligence through the formulation of “person-centered” rules in compliance with the appropriate standards of transparency, security and accountability, functionally to avoid the risk of created to protect fundamental rights. Following these coordinates, in addition to publishing a report on the use of artificial intelligence in education, culture and the audiovisual sector, the European Parliament has developed specific guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence in the military and civilian sectors, noting the implications Emerging technology can take on “sensitive” and sensitive areas for the protection of the human sphere, hence the need to ensure human control over artificial intelligence systems designed for the aforementioned purposes.

Artificial intelligence and digital domination

Although today partly defying the initial triumphant expectations that characterized the start-up process and due to an initial delay of guilt, the European artificial intelligence law was seen as a necessary tool capable of affirming “digital sovereignty” on a global scale compared to the current – leadership of other technological superpowers (USA and China).

Similarly, an attempt was made to fill a legislative gap that can no longer be postponed, also to fill the existing gap in a field – such as Artificial Intelligence – in which, in contrast to the embryonic phase of “work in progress” which is still is being carried out at the “European construction site”, we have proceeded to the specific implementation of strategies that have been issued, integrated and tested all these years. There is no doubt, in fact, that some countries have proven it a far-sighted intervention initiative (the pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy dating back to 2017 is emblematic), through the use of specific actions applied in the implementation experience that express political visions capable of recognizing, in advance, the innovations of technological development, instead of pursuing their relative dynamics a pervasive development too fast to make any legislation passed under obsolete slow and cumbersome procedural logics: not keeping up with the age of “technological convergence” means, in fact, having an inappropriate “toolbox” unsuitable for current uses associated with the complex challenges posed by the unprecedented technological age that prevails today.

An EU that is too slow runs the risk of not closing the gap

Therefore, a significant crisis is expected that could burden the process of regulating European artificial intelligence, also in the light of what is indicated in the recent European Parliament resolution of 3 May 2022 on artificial intelligence in a digital age with which the critical guidelines of the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Age (AIDA), certifying (as a possible political failure?) the EU’s procedural slowness, which, far from playing a leading role in the field of artificial intelligence, instead it is “so far behind in the global struggle for technological leadership”, in contrast to the initiative of other pioneering countries (such as the US and China) that have been politically active for some time, demonstrating the ability to make the necessary adjustments to existing regulatory framework on the subject.

In your absence change of course In the process of regulating artificial intelligence, there will be a gradual deterioration in the implementation of the current European framework, further exacerbated by national strategies that are still very inaccurate and without clear objectives, as well as the existence of various administrative barriers and too many bureaucratic obsolete which, therefore, require a harmonized alignment and sufficient for the challenges posed by Artificial Intelligence, to confirm a common vision anchored in a “anthropocentric” approach that can be shaped as an obstacle to the current dynamics of digital evolution close to reaching the level of the so-called. The “technological peculiarity” with extensions is not yet completely clear and decryptable.


In other words, even the European Parliament resolution today recognizes (as self-critical and its own way of acting in terms of political responsibility?), “Harmful effects on political stability, social security, individual freedoms and economic competitiveness”, the face of a series of significant negative effects that make the European Union vulnerable not only as a factor that is still very weak and technologically isolated “in the development of global standards”, but mainly at the risk of attempting to manipulate public opinion, as well as sophisticated forms of digital espionage various subversive actions carried out through massive disinformation campaigns capable of “undermining” democratic standards, endangering the survival of existing political systems, in the context of external intervention attributed to authoritarian regimes or hostile private corporations.


Leave a Comment