OUR WORLD - Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence

PERSPECTIVES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
provides an added value of trust to European AI in
the world. An ethical threshold consistent with our
European principles and values, reflected in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, and congruent with our civilizing project.
A legislation inspired by a humanistic approach
and focused on technological development. A
regulation applicable to both, AI developed in
Europe or willing to operate in the Union, and with
the aim of becoming a basic framework shared
throughout the world on minimum requirements
in the development and use of this technology.
The planning of the sector should not be
left off solely in the hands of the market. From
the Parliament, we assert the need for public
participation that safeguards objectives beyond
the possible economic profitability, so that the
measurable aspects in terms of social profitability
are also the subject of research and development:
better public services, social responsibility,
environmental sustainability, gender equality...
I also perceive as essential a public-private
collaboration that allows mobilizing the sufficient
amount of resources needed to catch up with
the investment efforts done in other parts of the
world -such is the strategy that the Commission
itself proposes in its White Paper.
From a regulatory viewpoint, it is clear that
the Union understands the need to establish
a demanding framework for safeguarding
citizens’ rights, as well as the essential principles
contained in the Lisbon Treaty. Nonetheless, we
also believe that certain margin of maneuver is
essential for the operators, and that they are the
ones who assume the need to bind themselves
with an ethical model in the development and
deployment. Legislators are aware of the need not
to establish an oppressive regulatory framework
that stifles the initiative, and also that it will be
impossible to understand such a complex and
changing reality without a flexible framework
that does not become obsolete with the arrival
of the following innovation. Likewise, one of the
main objectives is to avoid the fragmentation of
the European digital internal market, while also
complying with the sacred principle of subsidiarity.
That is why the report approved by the Parliament
designs a top-down governance model: a
European coordinating body able to harmonize
the regulatory development throughout the
Union and to adapt quickly to technological
developments; and entities responsible for
administering and enforcing standards at the
national level. There has been an intense debate
<strong>OUR</strong> <strong>WORLD</strong> | January 2021
Iban Garcia del
Blanco
Member of the
European Parliament
form Spain (S&D), Vice-
Chair of the Committee
on Legal Affairs,
Member of the Special
Committee on Artificial
Intelligence in a Digital
Age
around who should exercise that role without
the report ending up unraveling it. In my opinion,
the existence of a European agency in charge is
necessary, with sufficient rule to avoid the need
to regulate every small change that this constantly
growing technological environment is generating.
The report approved by the European
Parliament puts emphasis on the control of the
so-called “high-risk applications”, for which it
provides controls prior to their use and throughout
their operation, as it establishes demanding
obligations related to transparency, auditability
and reversibility. To define this high risk, the text
proposes a combination of categories referring to
the degree of predictability of putting a community
or an individual at risk, the use and the sector
where it will be used. Through this mixed system
we intend to give legal certainty to the system and,
at the same time, generate what has to be known
as “trustworthy ecosystem”.
Our objective is also that the design, the
development, the control and the supervision
of this regulatory framework be participated by
all citizens, and especially by the most involved
or affected individuals and groups. The text
establishes a mandate for all European and national
supervisory bodies so that, in an indispensable
way and periodically, they have the assistance
and participation of civil society in the design of
the main characteristics of the model, with special
attention to integrate the perspective of the small
and medium companies, the unions, or the
consumers. We intend not only a co-responsibility
on the compliance and enforcement, but also their
inclusion somehow or other in the design of the
governance mechanisms for the entire system.
Finally, I would like to highlight the need to
incorporate the general public into the debate and
knowledge of the implications of AI. This debate
cannot be only reduced to a group of experts,
operators, legislators and even associations and
groups of users. Such a disruptive technology has
to be subject to democratic control; societies as a
whole have to be aware of this reality and be able to
make big decisions about the models of society they
want. For this reason, I prefer to talk about “digital
literacy” rather than “acquisition of digital skills”
-and I believe that it is the duty of public authorities
to make the main concepts understandable to their
citizens and to guarantee a mature public debate
around AI. In this, the very survival of democracy
is at stake, taking into account the disturbing social
effects that an uncontrolled application of AI can
have in some areas.
29