If you missed it live, watch the full footage of our event and enjoy the spirited discussion.
Is the West becoming too digital too fast? Are the purported benefits of the technological shift overshadowed by its dangers? Do policymakers even understand the tools being used to shape our world? These were among the questions discussed at the latest event hosted by The European Conservative in Brussels, under the shadow of the EU’s headquarters.
Managing Editor Ellen Kryger Fantini launched the third installment of the publication’s series of events on the European Commission’s ‘legislative priorities’ for 2023 and 2024 by highlighting that the issues relating to the “coding of a new Europe” have become “all-encompassing.” All the more reason, then, to discuss them; and the timing could not have been better, with digital giants meeting at the same time in the same city to talk about “responsible AI for human ingenuity.”
Laetitia Pouliquen, founder of NBIC Ethics, contributor to the European Commission’s AI Ethical Guidelines, and panelist at The European Conservative’s event was pleased to report (more so, clearly, than those writing in Politico) that as she spoke, a group of people were demonstrating to “Pause AI” nearby with good reason, given that the development of many new technologies does not appear to be geared around “the greater good of society.” There is the ability through digital, Ms. Pouliquen added, for those in power to “know everything about us”—after all, “we leave digital prints everywhere we go”—extending the potential risk of harm further than many appear to appreciate.
In light of this, panelists were keen to discuss what European leaders hope to achieve with the growth of digital. Pouliquen questioned whether ethics are at the centre of their vision, or perhaps the protection of the EU’s sovereignty “in a [data] fight against China and the U.S.”
Dutch MEP Michiel Hoogeveen (JA21) added that when he questioned Brussels on the purpose of the move, for example, towards a digital euro, officials have responded that we need it because they are doing it in China. They are fearful, he said, of “being outperformed in terms of innovation,” a strategy that Fantini described as “laughable,” asking: “When has [copying Beijing] ever been a good idea?” Beyond such remarks, Hoogeveen concluded, “this question has not been answered fully to me.”
The third speaker, Carlos Perona Calvete, a political analyst and writer at The European Conservative, suggested that the “idiosyncratic language” surrounding the digital agenda means that “spurious” and “dangerous” ideas often go unnoticed alongside the good (such as this week’s discovery of a new superbug-killing antibiotic developed through the use AI). This, he noted, was made worse by the “techno-optimism” displayed by many leaders; the view that “whatever is new is good.”
Speakers agreed that policymakers should instead focus on that which puts humanity—not technology-for-technology’s-sake—in the foreground. Conservatives, Perona advocated, should “engage with technology” but “in a non-debilitating way”: “The human subject has to be the locus.” Children, to cite a small yet significant example, should be made to calculate sums in their heads, not on calculators, to prevent them from becoming “weaker subjects:”
There is a risk, too, that the increasing push towards digital dominance will make European citizens not just less strong but less free.
Ms. Pouliquen drew attention to the introduction of a social credit app in Bologna which is said to be geared up to promote “virtuous behavior.” Such schemes, she said, will help—if they are not already—to bring about a “very strong loss of freedom,” perhaps even a “transhumanist” reality. Dr. Norman Lewis, speaking from the audience, also raised concerns about moving toward the digital world facilitating a “fundamental attack on all of our privacy.”
Panelists, and some who raised questions, disagreed a little on the intentions of those pushing forth the digital transition. But all were broadly on the same page with regard to the direction of travel—whether purposeful or by accident. They called, therefore, for this transformation, as Mr. Hoogeveen put it, to be “put on ice,” at least until more questions have been answered and, as Mr. Perona stressed, until the position of the human in all this has been determined.
