Speaker 1: The European Union is on the brink of becoming the
Speaker 1: first major power in the world to regulate artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: Politicians in Europe will vote on a proposal to bring
Speaker 2: in a law that would govern the use of artificial intelligence.
Speaker 3: I think we have made history today. We have set
Speaker 3: the way for the dialogue that we will need to
Speaker 3: have we started having with the rest of the world.
Speaker 3: Or now we can build responsible AI for our globe.
Speaker 4: I'm Roslin Mathieson in for Wis Kosovo today on the
Speaker 4: big take. What's the European Union trying to do to
Speaker 4: regulate artificial intelligence?
Speaker 5: I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go
Speaker 5: quite wrong, and we want to be vocal about that.
Speaker 5: We want to work with the government to prevent that
Speaker 5: from happening. It's one of my areas of greatest concern.
Speaker 4: What you just heard was Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI,
Speaker 4: the artificial intelligence research lab that created the generative AI
Speaker 4: model known as CHATGBT. Earlier this year, he testified in
Speaker 4: front of the US Senate calling for more regulation of
Speaker 4: AI tech in both his own company and others, and
Speaker 4: just last week, open Ai, along with Google and Microsoft,
Speaker 4: went one step further they're creating an industry watchdog to
Speaker 4: make sure their AI models are safe. While regulation is
Speaker 4: moving at a snail's pace in the US. The European
Speaker 4: Union has set out to be the first Western administration
Speaker 4: to create a comprehensive set of guardrails around AI, known
Speaker 4: as the AI Act. But why are European regulations so important?
Speaker 2: If you wanted to evade the European regulations and, for instance,
Speaker 2: offer them this same AI product somewhere in the United States,
Speaker 2: you would need to retrain the model and carve out
Speaker 2: all the European data from that model, so that is
Speaker 2: often unappealing for companies.
Speaker 4: That was our new Bradford Law, professor at Columbia Law
Speaker 4: School and author of the term the Brussels effect, the
Speaker 4: idea that what is agreed in the EU becomes the
Speaker 4: global standard for regulation. We'll hear more from Arnu later
Speaker 4: in the episode, but first, Bloomberg reported, Gillian Deutsch joins
Speaker 4: us from Brussels to tell us a bit more about
Speaker 4: what exactly the AI Act is.
Speaker 6: The EU'SAI Act is really the first attempt by a
Speaker 6: Western government to comprehensively regulate artificial intelligence, and the European
Speaker 6: Commission first proposers back in twentyenty one, so this is
Speaker 6: pre chagipt hype, and their approach was really to regulate
Speaker 6: the use of the technology, not the technology itself. So
Speaker 6: they called it a risk based approach, and they prohibited
Speaker 6: certain kinds of technology or a certain kinds of uses
Speaker 6: of AI. For example, they've banned social scoring, and they
Speaker 6: often cite China and this kind of idea that you'd
Speaker 6: have a social score based on your behavior as a citizen.
Speaker 6: That's one of the things a're trying to avoid. And
Speaker 6: most of the puzzle focused on so called high risk
Speaker 6: use cases.
Speaker 7: So this is if law enforcement.
Speaker 6: Wants to use AI, or a company wants to use
Speaker 6: artificial intelligence to scan employment applications, for example, they want
Speaker 6: to make sure that is overseen by human There are
Speaker 6: certain assessments to make sure that their technology is not
Speaker 6: misused or enforces bias. But the vast majority of AI
Speaker 6: at that point would be unregulated if it's not using
Speaker 6: those high risk circumstances. So we didn't really see actually
Speaker 6: anything explicitly on gurnet of AI.
Speaker 7: If you look for the terms like large.
Speaker 6: Language models or the fundation models, these kinds of things
Speaker 6: that we're talking about so much now but not really
Speaker 6: found in that first draft. It's actually all about this
Speaker 6: high risk use cases. There are some basic transparency requirements
Speaker 6: for deep fakes and chatbots, but that's about it.
Speaker 4: This talk in a bit more detail about what this
Speaker 4: act actually does. Who is it trying to regulate, how
Speaker 4: is it trying to regulate.
Speaker 6: So the Commission's first proposal for the a Act is
Speaker 6: really to focus on the high risk use cases of AI.
Speaker 6: So if a government wants to use, for example, you know,
Speaker 6: artificial intelligence to scan a crowd to look for a
Speaker 6: terrorist or to look for a missing child, the Parliament,
Speaker 6: for example, wants to completely ban that. EU countries, though,
Speaker 6: are saying we need to have some kinds of uses
Speaker 6: for this kind of live facial scanning recognition technology.
Speaker 8: We also are seeing certain companies would be limited in.
Speaker 6: How they use artificial intelligence for sorting through job applications.
Speaker 7: For example, they couldn't really use.
Speaker 6: AI to choose the best candidates, for example, because a
Speaker 6: lot of technology has a long history of choosing white
Speaker 6: candidates over people of color. So those kinds of things
Speaker 6: would be moderated, But the vast majority of AI under
Speaker 6: the current proposal would be allowed or just allowed under
Speaker 6: very loose kinds of controls, like transparency requirements making sure
Speaker 6: people know they're talking to a chatbot, for example, or
Speaker 6: making sure that deep fakes are labeled as such.
Speaker 4: Well, you mentioned that this began really before chat GBT,
Speaker 4: but is that sort of driven some of the more
Speaker 4: recent urgency around it. You said, this is a process
Speaker 4: that began some time ago, but feel like it really
Speaker 4: needs to speed up.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean chat chept changed everything here in Brussels.
Speaker 6: So this has been debated for over two years, and
Speaker 6: about a year ago there U countries and lawmakers were
Speaker 6: starting to say there are foundation models that in the
Speaker 6: future could be really powerful, and maybe we should add
Speaker 6: some explicit guardrails around that upcoming technology. But they didn't
Speaker 6: really know what this would look like and they didn't
Speaker 6: know how to regulate it either. So U countries decided, okay,
Speaker 6: let's add some controls over general purpose AI, but they
Speaker 6: didn't really have a great idea for how to do this.
Speaker 6: It was actually lawmakers who were still debating the their
Speaker 6: version of the AI Act who really started adding more
Speaker 6: controls to this because they saw chatjeept explode and become
Speaker 6: from the fastest adopted technologies it'd ever seen, and it
Speaker 6: created this political impetus where they had to add actually
Speaker 6: explicitly regulate CHGBT, Internet of AI for the first time,
Speaker 6: and so they've really come about and added a lot
Speaker 6: more explicit controls. Lawmakers wanted to make sure that companies
Speaker 6: would summarize a copyreaded material that they used train these
Speaker 6: large language models. They also wanted to add some very
Speaker 6: interesting controls companies are not very happy with on making
Speaker 6: sure that they would explain the impact their technologies would have.
Speaker 7: On the environment, unroll of law.
Speaker 6: These are some things that companies argue they don't know
Speaker 6: how to comply with. But it's really the Parliament actually
Speaker 6: going full speed ahead and trying to regulate generative AI
Speaker 6: explicitly for the first time.
Speaker 4: You talk about generative AI, which is really sort of
Speaker 4: AI that basically generates other things audio content, stories at calls.
Speaker 4: Perhaps one day even a podcast could be generated from AI.
Speaker 4: But is that where the concern starts to lie. You
Speaker 4: talk about the focus on high risk in all of this,
Speaker 4: but it just sounds like it's an incredibly complex task
Speaker 4: to try and regulate such as sprawling and fairly new
Speaker 4: and nebulous sector. Is there worry and all of that
Speaker 4: that they step into over regulation?
Speaker 6: Overregulation is a massive concern for everyone. And it's actually
Speaker 6: interesting if you look at France. So France at Yugo
Speaker 6: is actually the country with the spearheading this effort to
Speaker 6: include what they were calling at the time general purpose AI,
Speaker 6: but now a year leader, they're actually they're the ones
Speaker 6: ring alarm bells that we if you do too much regulation,
Speaker 6: we might actually is that you miss out on this
Speaker 6: next wave of technology. And they want to make sure
Speaker 6: that their startups in both in France and both around
Speaker 6: the European Union can actually be leader in this technology.
Speaker 4: And here's what French President and Maliu Macron had to
Speaker 4: say about investment in AI earlier this year.
Speaker 1: I think we're number one in that's not that you are,
Speaker 1: and we have to accelerate. So this is why we
Speaker 1: want to invest more. It's a good thing is that
Speaker 1: we have a lot of good, very good dance. We
Speaker 1: have good matheticians, good that science is a lot of
Speaker 1: dance adapted to this AI environments. We would invest like
Speaker 1: crazy on training and research.
Speaker 4: Is there the sense that the EU is sort of
Speaker 4: the later the front runner on all of this.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's interesting because you know, we obviously saw Samultman
Speaker 6: from Open AI come out and tell the US Congress
Speaker 6: he wants regulation, and now there's really this impetus in Washington,
Speaker 6: d C.
Speaker 8: To actually regulate AI. But while the US.
Speaker 6: Government is actually looking at this for the first time,
Speaker 6: the is years ahead. Actually they might be ahead though,
Speaker 6: but they still actually haven't figured out just how far
Speaker 6: to go. The EU and US are talking about how
Speaker 6: to regulate AI. The US government is looking at the
Speaker 6: EU government both for as an example of what they
Speaker 6: could do, but also as a cautionary tale of how far,
Speaker 6: I mean too far you could go as a government.
Speaker 6: The US government is even actually lobbied against some of
Speaker 6: these controls as well and said that these are going
Speaker 6: to negatively impact their companies. It's interesting, you do see
Speaker 6: the US government they have some rules in certain states.
Speaker 6: In New York, for example, has laws about how to
Speaker 6: use it in employment situations. But really the EU is
Speaker 6: once again operating as the world's big tech regulator, and
Speaker 6: they have a long reputation of being that world's big
Speaker 6: tech regulator.
Speaker 8: But they also could be a model for going too far.
Speaker 4: Let's talk a little bit about within the EU also
Speaker 4: because there are very big differences between member states. Obviously
Speaker 4: in Brussels itself. You touched on some of these things
Speaker 4: because I imagine for countries who belong to the European Union,
Speaker 4: there's that thing where they want to protect from the
Speaker 4: high risk perspective, but also they want to capture some
Speaker 4: of this business.
Speaker 6: It's interesting because the problem has gone full speed ahead
Speaker 6: and they're adding all these controls like I mentioned, or
Speaker 6: want to add all these controls. The countries are really
Speaker 6: they're aware of all the possible risks. They see that
Speaker 6: this stuff could go too far, but also they want
Speaker 6: to be the hub where startups come and actually, you know,
Speaker 6: build the kind of company that could rival at Google
Speaker 6: or an open AI, and so they do not want
Speaker 6: to overregulate. Even Spain is lead the EU's presidency, they
Speaker 6: have a long reputation of trying to build up their
Speaker 6: AI market and their government has been very much.
Speaker 8: In trying to encourage AI startups to start there.
Speaker 6: So it's really going to be interesting to see how
Speaker 6: far they actually want to pursue rules on CHAGPT.
Speaker 4: My conversation with Jillian continues later in the episode, but
Speaker 4: first will the EU set a precedent for the US.
Speaker 4: I'm joined now by Columbia law professor Arnold Bradford, the
Speaker 4: author of the upcoming book Digital Empires, The Global Battle
Speaker 4: to Regulate Technology. Just to talk a bit more about
Speaker 4: the specifics of this Act in the European context, Arnu,
Speaker 4: I want to start off by asking you how is
Speaker 4: the EU's rights based approach being applied specifically to the
Speaker 4: AI Act.
Speaker 2: So the EU's main concern when it comes to development
Speaker 2: and deployment of AI is how it implicates fundamental rights
Speaker 2: of individuals, So that has been one of the guiding principles.
Speaker 2: So the EU is particularly worried about the individual's fundamental
Speaker 2: right to privacy and the AI can be a very
Speaker 2: powerful tool for surveillance. So the AI Act is looking
Speaker 2: to limit the ways AI systems can be used for
Speaker 2: surveillance purposes, for instance, whether it's predicted policing, but also
Speaker 2: thinking about using facial recognition in public places that can
Speaker 2: potentially then put large segments of the population under surveillance.
Speaker 2: So privacy is one thing, and another particular aspect of
Speaker 2: fundamental rights that is relevant here is discrimination.
Speaker 9: So many companies are using.
Speaker 2: For instance, AI as a tool for recruitment, so the
Speaker 2: AI can determine your access to employment, the AI can
Speaker 2: determine access to education, or banks, financial institutions can use
Speaker 2: AI to screen individuals access to credit, or then the
Speaker 2: states can use it to determine access to public benefits.
Speaker 2: And that is a setting within which some concerns over
Speaker 2: discrimination can arise.
Speaker 4: Just given the complexities of like how you regulate AI
Speaker 4: and the EU trying to hit the right note with
Speaker 4: legislation that's vast and complex, I guess a million dollar
Speaker 4: question is is it even feasible to try and do this?
Speaker 2: So I think that is a really critical question ros
Speaker 2: and I think the EU is conscious of the difficulty
Speaker 2: of the task ahead. But at the same time, I
Speaker 2: don't think it is enough to basically deter the EU
Speaker 2: from going ahead with this legislation. So there's a very
Speaker 2: big temptation, and one often hears that, look, this is
Speaker 2: too fast moving, this is too complicated, and the legislators
Speaker 2: just don't have the technical expertise to regulate. But I
Speaker 2: would rather say that this is not just a part technology.
Speaker 2: It is also about how technology implicates fundamental rights, how
Speaker 2: it implicates democracy, And I wouldn't say that the facebooks
Speaker 2: of the world would have any expertise in being in
Speaker 2: charge of democracy and fundamental rights. So that alone, I
Speaker 2: think justifies that democratic governance have the seat at the
Speaker 2: table when it comes to steering the AI future of
Speaker 2: the societies.
Speaker 10: I think that you have all hurt and probably agree
Speaker 10: that AI is too important not to regulate, and it's
Speaker 10: too important to badly regulate. A good regulation that we
Speaker 10: all agree on as soon as possible must be a
Speaker 10: common objective.
Speaker 4: What you just heard was Marguerite Vestiger, the EU Commission's
Speaker 4: executive Vice President, addressing the European Parliament last month. So
Speaker 4: would you describe the legislation as sort of the best
Speaker 4: that it can be at this point in time or
Speaker 4: when you look at it given your experience with sort
Speaker 4: of regulation and the challenges as a whole, do you
Speaker 4: see any holes in the legislation? Do you see things
Speaker 4: that lawmakers have missed in this process? So what would
Speaker 4: be your advice to them if you could look at
Speaker 4: this legislation and talk to them about it?
Speaker 2: So I think it would be probably fair to say
Speaker 2: that this is not going to be a perfect legislation
Speaker 2: and that sometimes then invites the question whether no legislation
Speaker 2: is better than imperfect legislation, And there I'm willing to
Speaker 2: say that even if we don't fully get to the
Speaker 2: kind of regulation that best serves the development of AI
Speaker 2: over the future years, it is still important to get
Speaker 2: basic guardrails in place. So yes, in many ways, I
Speaker 2: think the legislation is still somewhat vague, so that I
Speaker 2: think suggests this is the best that we can do
Speaker 2: at this point. You cannot expect the lawmakers to become
Speaker 2: too specific in prescribing how you dive a lot of
Speaker 2: these technologies. But at the same time, they do have
Speaker 2: the need to put in place those transparency applications so
Speaker 2: that we can still have democratic oversight and a conversation
Speaker 2: that we open the black box behind these technologies and
Speaker 2: gain a better understanding.
Speaker 4: The EU approach is very different from the US approach,
Speaker 4: which is very hands off, basically sort of looking towards
Speaker 4: voluntary regulation if there is such a thing.
Speaker 11: AI can help deal with some very difficult challenges like
Speaker 11: disease and climate change, but also have to address the
Speaker 11: potential risk to our society, to our economy, to our
Speaker 11: national security. Tech companies have a responsibility in my view,
Speaker 11: to make sure the products are safe before making them public.
Speaker 4: I'm interested in your view on that. And b even
Speaker 4: if the US decided they wanted to tackle this, is
Speaker 4: it just impossible during the US election season.
Speaker 9: So the US has for.
Speaker 2: Quite a while been reluctant or unable to legislate soared
Speaker 2: to the European, Americans are still much more convinced that
Speaker 2: there is faith in the operation of the markets and
Speaker 2: greater faith in the tech companies self regulation, and at
Speaker 2: the same time greater hesitancy that the governments can improve
Speaker 2: outcomes by stepping in. So that's why I've often described
Speaker 2: the American way of regulating more of a market based
Speaker 2: approach as opposed to the European rights based approach, and
Speaker 2: I think there are.
Speaker 9: A few reasons for that.
Speaker 2: So the Americans are still very focused on safeguarding the
Speaker 2: conditions for a thriving tech ecosystem that is ideal for innovation.
Speaker 2: They are also regulating in the shadow of US China
Speaker 2: tech war, so Americans are very concerned that the US
Speaker 2: will retain its technological supremacy and it cannot be left
Speaker 2: behind in this ongoing tech race. There's also tremendous lobbying
Speaker 2: by the tech companies that partially explain why the US
Speaker 2: Congress has not been able to generate any meaningful legisla
Speaker 2: even though the public opinion in the US has been
Speaker 2: shifting to be more skeptical of tech companies self regulation,
Speaker 2: and it's just generally that the political process is rather dysfunctional,
Speaker 2: we see very little meaningful legislation emerging from Congress. Still today,
Speaker 2: we are seeing something like a voluntary guidance coming from
Speaker 2: the White House. There's a blueprint for AI Bill of Rights,
Speaker 2: but ultimately those voluntary regulations, they leave the decisions in
Speaker 2: the hands of the tech companies.
Speaker 4: In terms of talking about the mitigation part of it,
Speaker 4: do you see a potential to actually use AI to
Speaker 4: regulate AI? Are there any aspects of AI that can
Speaker 4: be drawn out that are more positive, that are more productive,
Speaker 4: that can be used in the application of systems to
Speaker 4: regulate AI.
Speaker 2: I think it's almost inevitable. Ultimately, if the AAI really
Speaker 2: is as powerful of a tool, for instance, to be
Speaker 2: used by criminals, we need to then make sure that
Speaker 2: we also have the good actors to deploy the AI
Speaker 2: and develop AI in a way that we can, for instance,
Speaker 2: more easily detect the wrongdoing, we can detect fraud, and
Speaker 2: if we think about using AI to spread fraudulent information
Speaker 2: misinformation that we also have the power of that technology
Speaker 2: that is deployed in a way that allows us to
Speaker 2: fight those downsides and mitigate that kind of harmful activity.
Speaker 2: So absolutely, I think there is a great need and
Speaker 2: I would like to think a great incentive by many
Speaker 2: developers of these technologies to make sure that the technology
Speaker 2: is deployed in a way that can be used as
Speaker 2: a powerful weapon for good.
Speaker 4: As we come back to the idea where the EU
Speaker 4: is that, could you just walk us through where the
Speaker 4: act is at now and what the processes are to
Speaker 4: bring it fully into law because it has to be
Speaker 4: discussed with the EU member states and there could be
Speaker 4: some wrinkles, no doubt there.
Speaker 9: What are the next steps in this process?
Speaker 2: So we two years into this process rather so that's
Speaker 2: when the proposal was first put forward by the European Commission,
Speaker 2: and right now we have the proposal that has gone
Speaker 2: through the legislative process in the Council that represents the
Speaker 2: voices of the Member States and in the Parliament that
Speaker 2: then represents the European citizens. But now we have this
Speaker 2: last phase of the legislative process where we need to
Speaker 2: reconcile the differences between the Parliament and the Council, and
Speaker 2: the Commission is there as a broker in these conversations,
Speaker 2: So there are some differences. I think it's fair to
Speaker 2: say that the Parliament has been more ambitious in imposing
Speaker 2: additional applications that we're not part of the version that
Speaker 2: went through the Council. And now this fall is the
Speaker 2: time when we are trying to find a consensus between
Speaker 2: the two legislators, and because of the looming European elections
Speaker 2: next summer, there is a timing issue.
Speaker 9: So if we fail to reach.
Speaker 2: A consensus and pass the AI Act through this final stage,
Speaker 2: the fear is that we go to the next elections
Speaker 2: and then we have a new slate of maps with
Speaker 2: their own priorities, and we need to go back to
Speaker 2: the drawing board. So there is a great need now
Speaker 2: for Spain, as the President of the European Council, Douta
Speaker 2: try to proger the compromise and make sure that we
Speaker 2: can get the law out. Still in the course of
Speaker 2: this fall, of.
Speaker 4: Course, I need to ask you about the Brussels effect
Speaker 4: which is a phrase that many of our listeners would
Speaker 4: have heard of but may not know. The EU in
Speaker 4: fact coined this phrase, which is to describe the way
Speaker 4: that essentially, if I've got this RIEU regulation becomes the
Speaker 4: standard everywhere because companies say, well, we need to standardize
Speaker 4: our operations globally, so even though it's only an EU regulation,
Speaker 4: it can become the way they operate, including.
Speaker 9: In the US.
Speaker 4: Would you expect this to be the same in this case?
Speaker 2: I believe that there is very likely to be a
Speaker 2: Brussels effect, at least on some applications of AI. So,
Speaker 2: first of all, AI is a multifaceted thing and there
Speaker 2: are many forms and types of AI, so I wouldn't
Speaker 2: think that we will see every AI system to be
Speaker 2: following the European regulations around the world. But there are
Speaker 2: a couple of features of how AI works that lends
Speaker 2: itself really well to the Brussels effect. So one is
Speaker 2: that you need a lot of data to develop empower
Speaker 2: these models. So the more data you have normally the
Speaker 2: better AI models you have. And if you are willing
Speaker 2: to use the European data to train these models, you
Speaker 2: are bound by European AI Act and then if you
Speaker 2: want to offer that same AI system in another market
Speaker 2: and use those models that were trained using the European data,
Speaker 2: you do need to continue to be bounded by the
Speaker 2: AI Act. So if you wanted to evade the European
Speaker 2: regulations and for instance, offer them the same AI products
Speaker 2: somewhere in the United States, you would need to retrain
Speaker 2: the model and carve out all the European data from
Speaker 2: that model. So that is often unappealing for companies.
Speaker 4: When we return more from Bloomberg's Gillian Deutsch about the
Speaker 4: future of AI regulation, Jillian, let's talk a bit about
Speaker 4: the role of big tech in their lobbying efforts that
Speaker 4: have gone on so far. Obviously, tech companies themselves, some
Speaker 4: of them expressed concern the CEOs about the pace of
Speaker 4: AI and the risk from AI, but also they want
Speaker 4: to harness it and make money from it.
Speaker 9: So what have they been lobbying the EU for.
Speaker 6: It's interesting because the EU proposed AIA Act two years
Speaker 6: ago and companies have been lobbying like crazy in the
Speaker 6: interim and actually they elected to the Commission's first proposal
Speaker 6: because for the most part it left generative AI untouched.
Speaker 6: It was mostly if this technology was used in high
Speaker 6: risk circumstances, then it would be regulated. So tech companies
Speaker 6: were mostly pretty happy with that initial idea. It was
Speaker 6: when you countries and lawmakers began adding more controls that
Speaker 6: they started to ring alarm bells and freak out. It's
Speaker 6: kind of difficult to summarize exactly what companies all want,
Speaker 6: but if I were to boil it down to three points,
Speaker 6: it's basically one trust us week as companies have already
Speaker 6: put in our own controls. We have not launched certain
Speaker 6: products as well because of possible misuse or problems we've
Speaker 6: seen arise. Two, they say it's not really up to
Speaker 6: us as developers to see how this technology is used.
Speaker 7: It's up to the users.
Speaker 6: It's up to these companies that purchase that AI. They're
Speaker 6: the ones who determine how it's actually used. So it's
Speaker 6: really up to those companies and those users to bear the.
Speaker 7: Cost and the burden of compliance of regulation.
Speaker 6: And Third, they really want to stick with this risk
Speaker 6: based approach, which, to remind you, that means very few
Speaker 6: controls on genertive AI.
Speaker 4: And how will this fit against individual country regulation? I mean,
Speaker 4: obviously nations sort of do agree that Brussels has the
Speaker 4: say on some of these broad issues, but equally each
Speaker 4: country is still going to try and do their own thing.
Speaker 6: To some extent, I think individual countries are really going
Speaker 6: to be tripping over each other to become the AI
Speaker 6: hub in the EU because the EU has a massive
Speaker 6: chip on his shoulder.
Speaker 7: They've missed out on many waves of.
Speaker 6: Technology, most notably the social media wave. They want to
Speaker 6: have some kind of company that could someday really rival
Speaker 6: the lakes of Google, the lakes of Microsoft. And so
Speaker 6: we will definitely see countries like France, Spain trying to
Speaker 6: attract those startups, trying to build them up, help them
Speaker 6: scale up, and not lose them to the US like
Speaker 6: they've seen in previous startups. So we definitely will see
Speaker 6: countries trying to become the most hospitable hub for AI.
Speaker 4: And we've talked a lot, I guess about the risks
Speaker 4: about the full lad about slightly dystopian future that people
Speaker 4: warn might come with AI. So let's maybe talk just
Speaker 4: briefly about the upside. Also when we look at AI
Speaker 4: and the possibilities across business, governments and so on, what
Speaker 4: does the EU sees the potential of AI that is.
Speaker 6: Such a great question because so much of the conversation
Speaker 6: here in Brussels is about the possible harms and big
Speaker 6: tech companies trying to steal the entire market in Europe
Speaker 6: never being able to compete.
Speaker 7: I think lawmakers do.
Speaker 6: Realize that there is serious upside to productivity to the
Speaker 6: healthcare industry and they want to make sure that.
Speaker 7: They also can capitalize on that as well.
Speaker 6: Part of the A Act actually is this thing called sandboxes,
Speaker 6: which is basically allowing smaller companies to operate with few
Speaker 6: restrictions so that they can kind of test out their
Speaker 6: technology and not be constrained by so much regulation. And
Speaker 6: so this at least is one opportunity for EU politicians
Speaker 6: to say, look, we're not just focused in the regulation,
Speaker 6: we also care about the innovation here as well.
Speaker 4: If you had to make a bet, what would you
Speaker 4: say would be in that final bill.
Speaker 6: There's no question to me generative AI will be included
Speaker 6: in some way. I do think that most people that
Speaker 6: are not in the Parliament I think the Parliament.
Speaker 7: Went too far.
Speaker 6: So I think some of these concerns or from companies
Speaker 6: that they will not be able to quantify the impact
Speaker 6: on the rule of law or the impact on the environment.
Speaker 6: Those risk classments will probably be taken out, but we
Speaker 6: will definitely will see some controls of Genervia, There's no
Speaker 6: question about that.
Speaker 9: Julian, thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for as Thanks for listening to
Speaker 4: us here at The Big Take. It's a daily podcast
Speaker 4: from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit
Speaker 4: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and
Speaker 4: we'd love to hear from you. Email us with questions
Speaker 4: or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg dot net. The
Speaker 4: supervising producer of The Big Take is Vicky Viergelina. Our
Speaker 4: senior producer is Catherine Fink. Federica Romangniello is our producer.
Speaker 4: Our associate producer is zenab Zidiki. Hilde Garcia is our engineer.
Speaker 4: Original music by Leo Sidrin. I'm Rosland Matheson in for Wescousover.
Speaker 4: We'll be back tomorrow with another Big Take.