006 - Heads Talk - The Analysis - Dr. Chiara Rustici's Analysis on Episode 290 - Sara Magdalena Goldberger

Follow me to see #HeadsTalk Podcast Audiograms every Monday on LinkedIn

Heads Talk - The Analysis - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞

_____________________________________________

The Analysis is part of Heads Talk®: Nexus Rerum: Boardrooms & Statecraft. Here we extend the conversation beyond the principal exchange.

1 or 2 consequential questions from the main episode are placed before a second distinguished voice. An individual deeply embedded in the worlds of business, policy, or geopolitics. Their role is not merely to respond, but to interrogate: to examine the framing of the question, challenge its assumptions, and surface the deeper strategic and intellectual currents that may otherwise remain unspoken.

This is expert analysis, a companion discussion that offers a more deliberate and expansive reflection, where ideas are tested, perspectives are sharpened, and the dialogue evolves beyond its original bounds.

What you will hear is a continuation, not a repetition. A considered counterpoint. A deeper reading of the question at hand, a nuance.

We hope you find The Analysis  both illuminating and indispensable as part of the broader Heads Talk experience.

In this episode, we feature Dr Chiara Rustici's analysis of Episode 290 with Sara Magdalena Goldberger, Episode Title: 🇨🇭Under Surveillance🇸🇪

• Question 2: Have governments already lost meaningful control of the AI race, and are we now relying on a few corporate leaders to exercise restraint over technologies that could reshape society?
• Question 4: If algorithms are quietly shaping decisions across society, who actually holds accountability when those systems get it wrong?
  
  

Dr Chiara Rustici's previous Heads Talk episodes: 041 & 157

Further enquiries or to connect with Dr Chiara Rustici: c.rustici@gmail.com 

ABOUT THE HOST

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:02

I have a suggestion. I have a suggestion. Go on. Because I've been thinking about it all night, you see, Elaine. So you know, Sarah makes a few good, um, she she has a few throwaway, you know, great lines. Yeah. And I'm gonna hook on to those because you and her were on a sort of Socratic journey where you were going left and right and then a bit left again. And but but at the same time, there was there were great insights that could be developed further. And the hooks that I would like to use is a couple of questions she said. For example, she said about the um the the AI, the tech bros. She said, hang on a minute, what have they actually created? You know, what have they done? Have they done anything generally new? The leadership of the largest technology company are de facto colonels in the US Army that have been they have been uh uh commandeered, they have been enlisted. It's there is absolutely no um no filter, if you wish, between uh military research and development and uh private sector research and development. You can't have a dedicated military research and development, budget and research and development program that will fail, that will never be fast enough. You let you need to let the private sector do its magic, do its work, you need to let the startup ecosystem work its best. And then you select the winners, you select technology that's the most promising that has better military applications, etc. There is the ultimate military doctrine of the US, which is supremacy in all military domains. And because cyberspace is one of the recognized military domains, I mean military doctrine has recognised it since 2006, we need to lose that. Um, total dominance.

SPEAKER_03 2:23

What's his name again? Uh Alibaba Girl, yes.

SPEAKER_04 2:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 2:29

He wrote about that and how he's been sort of muted because he was growing at a scale where he was starting to look like a Western oligarch, but China, you know, the ethos is not about that. And they needed to save that in just in case others have got ideas. I'll let you continue the conversation.

SPEAKER_01 2:48

No, no, no, no. What you said is correct. I mean, we were seeing it's sort of a Western type figure in China. You know Microsoft. At least his levels really his idols were all here. And China let him grow into a national champion for something that we're very, very proud, and then all of a sudden he disappeared. He's stepping out now is probably not a coincidence the world he grew up in and he believed in some labor.

SPEAKER_05 3:25

He's stepping down, but is is he's gonna be doing a very important diplomatic role in terms of the gaze on American individuals for the different countries. And I think and I to be honest, if if I would say that's arguably a more important role, isn't it?

SPEAKER_01 3:43

Helene, you might get Tim Cook next time, you know?

SPEAKER_05 3:46

Well we'll see, we'll see. This is Head's talk, The Analysis. Things are shaped as much by questions as by answers. We introduce the analysis, a considered intervention within each episode. Here we take a single consequential question and submit it to a second independent mind, a practitioner, a strategist, a thinker of standing. Not merely to answer, but to examine, to unpack its premises, expose its tensions, and extend its meaning beyond the immediate exchange. It is, in essence, a dialogue beneath the dialogue where ideas are not only expressed but tested. This is where perspective sharpens judgment and where insight begins to compound. Welcome to the analysis. Dr. Kiara Rushtichi returns to Head's Talk for a third appearance now, um, this time as an analyst on the analysis. Um Chiara is she's a respected legal scholar and digital regulation expert. And I think I think you cornered the phrase with it, chief regulations officer or something, um, whose work spans London, Rome, and Washington policy circles. The thing about Chiara, and the thing why I wanted uh wanted her to be one of the analysts for this whole um series of conversations because I've had her twice on Head's Talk and I've listened to her, and we've had two great episodes. I will put a link, listeners, to those two episodes so you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's the depth, it's the depth of um information that Kiara brings, the level of um detail that she applies to uh answers to the questions of previous episodes, and and the thought that she brings into things. It really makes your head go off in all sorts of directions when she talks about a particular subject. And it was I just thought we needed to bring her here. I mean, she's been a commentator, an article writer, a journalist on many occasions, and we will add all that necessary details to the show notes so you know where Chiara is coming from and why what she will bring to these two questions for this episode that um of um Sarah Magdalena Goldberger, and and you will see, and and obviously we will have Sarah um Chiara back again. And please just keep giving us your details and your commentary and just say, look, we want more of this person, we want more of that person. And if Chiara is willing, because I know she's a busy woman, if she's willing, she will come back again and do an analysis on an uh another episode. So we as I said, we're going to talk about um uh Sarah um Magdalena Goldberger. Um, just for the listeners, there are two episodes I've talked about that Kiara did. The first one was on the vaccine uh um passport. Can you imagine that seems like such a long time ago? The vaccine passport that was during the COVID um period, I think that was 2021, 2022, and the other one was the Digital Service Act. So um links will be in the episode um show notes so you can have a gander. Okay, uh back to uh Sarah, Sarah's um episode. And we're gonna look at question two and question four. So I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do is just read the question and then Kiara's gonna come back to me. Kiara, you're you are there. I just want to listen to know your. I am indeed. I am blushing. Have I missed anything else? Is there anything you want to add in in terms of your bio description of what you want to do? No, I think I think you have been very generous in your description of mine. All right, okay, good, good stuff. Good stuff.

unknown 7:30

All right.

SPEAKER_05 7:31

Okay, um I hope you're close to the mic so we can hear you clearly. I'm gonna read the question. Uh, question two, given to Sarah, is have governments already lost meaningful control uh of the AI race? And are we now relying on a few corporate leaders to exercise restraint over technologies that could reshape the society? And I asked Sarah that question because what was in my mind, uh if you look at the word restraint in that question, was that I felt that because it's everything is in such a sort of a naissance stage that regulations which always and governance and that sort of stuff always takes ages to catch up with what's going on, not there yet. And there's a a sense of uh um Chiara will correct me, it's sort of a at the moment a free-for-all, and we're not quite in this in the state where we are controlling all the various steps supply chain in in in this technology. And and that's why I sort of raised that question to Sarah, and I want um Chiara to look at that question, and obviously look at the answers provided and you know bring her magic to the discussion. So over to you, Sara. Sorry, over to you, Chiara.

SPEAKER_01 8:46

Yes, yes. Elaine, you you you are right. I you know, it's undeniable. The sense that you pointed out of us catching up, us meaning both consumers and regulators catching up with private sector initiative, it's undeniable. We we're all we we all have that sense of um I wouldn't say powerless powerless business, but certainly the sense of being flooded, you know, that there's um there's there's an overpowering um output right now of um of new of new technology. But but um it is not the case. It is not the case that um nation states and regulators within those nation states are standing by, are powerless, and have no levers at all. And and there's also one L, not not only because they're quickly implementing, quickly passing legislation, but also because they have several other uh uh dynamics at their disposal, which Sarah did not go into, but I would love to sink my teeth into. And for example, the relationship between this unbridled creativity of um uh big tech, especially US big tech and the US government, it needs unpicnicking. It's not as straightforward as big tech goes ahead and and and government uh chases after them. What I would like to draw your attention to is the fact that technology and state interests are very closely aligned, even though they're not necessarily closely declared. These interests are very often um matter of uh uh state uh state craft and national security, the matter of um um rearmament, competition races. So you and I know that to say that we're in a peacetime economy, it's more than slightly misleading. We're not. We are in a time of unpeace, to say uh migrantly, and to quote the European Commission itself, we are in an age of hybrid warfare. So, what that means is that we have to in a way act in a duplicitous manner. We have to, we as um civil society but also uh legislators, we have to carry on as if if we are as if we were um at peace, but also prepare for all sorts of attacks and hybrid uh threats from the various dimensions. And so when when states um ask that technology interest gets aligned with state interest, um they're doing the right thing. They are preparing, uh they are, if you want, um working along the criteria of a rearmament economy. So to cut a long story short, it gets very lazy when we say, oh, big tech is unbridled, it's it's running amok, we need to do something, especially US big tech. Not so fast. Um big tech, in a way, it's a pawn in a bigger game, and each nation state is both encouraging and enlisting uh technology and technological breakthroughs. So no surprises there. You met your guest Sarah mentioned correctly that um the leadership of the largest technology company are de facto colonels in the US Army. They have been they have been uh commandeered, they have been enlisted. It's there is absolutely no um no filter, if you wish, between um military research and development and uh private sector research and development. I'll make one last point and then we can move on. If your listeners want to have the lowdown on this, they could do very little that's better reading an old article in foreign affairs by Paul Nakasone. Paul Nakasone has a whole doctrine of how US military research and development needs to change to prepare for the new century. And if you go back to uh 2020, you'll you'll find this article. And Paul Nakasone was the head of the NSA, um, the National Security Agency, and he now is either sits on the board, I don't know exactly what his formal status is, but he is with OpenAI. So he firstly formulated the idea that um you can't have a dedicated military research and development budget and research and development program that will fail, that will never be fast enough. You let you need to let the private sector do its magic, do its work, you need to let the startup ecosystem work its best. And then you select the winners, you select the technology that's most promising, that has better um military applications, etc., and you enlist them. So this is not new. And if you want this marriage of you know, tech bros and the Pentagon, it's it's a shotgun marriage, you know. The the tech bros did not flirt with this, they fell into it. That's what I was going to ask.

SPEAKER_05 14:33

Yeah, how how does that stick with you, McLean? Yeah, because you said they were commandeered, these big tech leaders. And the thing I wanted to ask, but I uh let you continue with your flow. The thing I wanted to ask was that did they know? Was it in it, as you talked about the shotgun reading, they didn't know that they this is the position that they will end up in. They just thought they were building a business and making a profit and and whatnot. But the fact that they've drawn in, as you say, commandeered into the military, is that because the US is looking at China, looking at other nation states and how they are doing this and how they're doing business, because they these are sort of not the typical democracies of the world, and thinking that we need to implement that. We need to change how we do things, we need to create a marriage of convenience, I suppose. We need to create some kind of alliance, whether they like it or not, so that we have control is the wrong word because you talked about it being lazy. We have not just sight, we have access, maybe. We have access and we have a relationship, we have an understanding, and we have a nizmas of relationship going forward.

SPEAKER_01 15:43

The short answer is yes, you nailed you nailed it. Yeah, absolutely. Um there is the uh there is the big China competition, um and there is uh uh the ultimate military doctrine uh for the US, which is supremacy in all military domains. And because cyberspace is one of the recognized military domains, I mean military doctrine has recognized it since 2006, NATO knows that cyberspace is a domain where the US wants to maintain um total dominance, and uh and that is achieved by proactive and reactive capabilities. And by proactive, I mean exactly what you think. I mean, you know, um hacking, being inside the other competitors' network. So what there's a lot that we do not know because exactly for exactly this reason, because it's um we're in we we know that we have entered an age where cyber warfare is being fought below the visible, you know, below the visible line. Um and the the question, did they know, or perhaps should they have anticipated that sooner or later, you know, they would have got the shotgun to the temple. Um I suppose you can't expect startup leaders to know everything uh 20 years ahead. And I think it's unfair because this this you know generation of leadership, let's call this generation, let's let's go back to Steve um jobs and and the the Mac. Apple grew and and got as big as it was because we were in an age of a deregulation and b globalization. So Apple could be as big as it was because the supply chains were global, etc. We know that. So is it fair to ask um a generation of technology leaders that are given opportunity by one, not only one type of legal framework, but one type of um concept of history? You know, when when Apple was growing, we said, ah, the end of history. Fukuyama said, there's no real um West against the rest now. We're all you know, we're all um one little assembly on the same trajectory, on the same line. So we got these leaders to grow up and and give us their best at a time when we see we um very generically made certain promises about globalization and about um what sharing technology could mean. Now we're reproaching them for um you know having saturations in China. So in a sense, it's the it's the world view that has betrayed the tech bros, it's not the tech bros that have betrayed the world view. It's they were doing what they were you know allowed to do, and they were supposed to do. I think that they're they're learning very fast. I think Tim Cook has been uh learning very hard lessons on on China. Him stepping out now, it's it's probably not a coincidence. The world he grew up in and he believed in is no longer there for him to navigate.

SPEAKER_05 19:02

Yeah, he's he's stepping down, but he's is he's gonna be doing a very important and diplomatic role in terms of the liaison American individual for the different countries. And I think I to be honest, if if I would say that's arguably a more important role, especially when this sort of this globalization ethos is up in question at the moment and where we're standing. And uh, we need as perhaps a figurehead like um to be on the world stage, uh, dare I say, because you know that's in short supply in terms of having the right sort of figureheads um on the West to deliver that. This is from all angles, from the US to the to the European. So basically, you're saying um what you're saying in terms of hybrid warfare is because of the introduction of very clear hybrid warfare, why these um uh sectors uh have to come in and be part of the army. Because prior to that, you had the sort of industrial uh complex, uh the warfare which had a relationship with governments, and that was very clear, and that was kind of a binary relationship. Because it's change, warfare's change. All the other sectors had to come in and wait a minute, we're gonna have to train you up to be soldiers like the other guys. When I say soldiers metaphorically, like the other guys, and they're thinking, well, actually, we you know, this is that what we're in this business for? Is that what we yeah, but if we don't do that, then we will have this hit on us. The learning, yes. So that's what's happening. Interesting.

SPEAKER_01 20:34

And you're quite quite right. Tim Cook is is kind of been asked to become a statesman, an elderly states now. It's no longer a business. Yeah, Apple is no longer a garage.

SPEAKER_05 20:44

Um in some ways, it's no longer a business, it's probably a state run. Well, it's not quite a state run, but you know what I mean? It's a there's an element of state control, and therefore, there's starting to be a little bit of a blurring of the lines between the relationship between business and state, as in China, because we I think you wrote about what was his name again.

SPEAKER_03 21:06

Uh yeah, Alibar.

SPEAKER_05 21:08

Alibaba guy, yes. Yeah, you wrote about that and how he's been sort of muted because he was growing at a scale where he was starting to look like a Western oligarch. And China, you know, their ethos is not about that, and they needed to rein that in just in case others got ideas. Uh I'll let you continue the conversation.

SPEAKER_01 21:29

No, no, no, no. What you said is correct. I mean, we were seeing a sort of a Western type figure in China of entrepreneurs who's who had, you know, uh Microsoft uh um his level, really, his idols were all here. And and China let him grow into a national champion to something that we're very, very proud. And then all of a sudden, he disappeared. He literally disappeared from the scene and came back with a very in a very muted um

SPEAKER_05 22:00

uh profile no longer no longer um issuing interviews etc in a very sort of i wouldn't say coward but certainly diminished um form of form of uh of role whatever whatever role he has now so that there's yeah there's that there's that's yeah because it's yeah it's a symmetrical yeah it's a symmetrical yeah I think the problem is that the the West we tend to idolize individuals we tend to idolize that one entrepreneur that one individual that's created this unicorn that's you know that's converted into billions and billions of in terms of valuation and we idolize that individual whereas the Chinese are more about group thinking group success group development all for one kind of thing whereas the the Alibarberg he was becoming a bit like the Western icon China perhaps did not want that there's a lot of things that China is happy to have and work with in terms of Western what how the West developed but certain things needed to be kept in check I suppose and that was one of them and and that's what we have seen absolutely absolutely it's it's um then there's a lot of dimensions into that but so that's one of them that's one of them that um my my reading of if if you want or my pet hey it is when everything is big text fault I mean of course there are mistakes mistakes have been made but ultimately that's lazy lazy thinking there's there's a lot there are a lot of undercurrents there are a lot of nuances so um yeah but but thank you for the clarity actually thank you for the clarity in terms of I was tossing my head in who's controlling whom because you you know I I've spoken to the different guests and we talked about the US inauguration and the the sight of the tech bros at the front row rather than the you know the normal dignitaries at the front row of that and well what's happening here yes we I know we need to celebrate um lead captains and leaders of industry but what's happening is there's something more detailed and underlined going on here and you sort of give me the sort of a a a sense of what is really happening.

SPEAKER_01 24:16

Yeah well it's certainly one angle I mean it you know no no explanation is ever exhaustive in it it's not definitive but it it gives you sense one angle not to not to not to underestimate um that there was uh there was um uh a net waiting for them to fall into and that net was being um sort of prepared by by these um intelligence agencies and and the perhaps without the knowledge a long time yes and perhaps without finishing yeah I don't think I don't think Mark Zuckerberg would have spent time reading foreign affairs no I can I think that's uh probably he didn't have the right advisors then but he's where he's now they they're all they all are where they are now and Bezos you know and they all they all having to work with it um they're all having to learn other job yeah um and re and redesign their not just their allegiances but you know their supply chains their everything they have to redesign and and and their outlook and and the way they do things and their outlook because that hasn't changed as well because you're now as you're now sort of part of as you say the system you have to you're not just a free-for-all entrepreneur doing your stuff no it's good stuff let's move on because of time again let's move on let's move on to um Sara's question four and the question is if algorithms are quietly shaping decisions across society who actually holds accountability when those systems get it wrong and the reason why I asked that question because I think there's a sort of a growing thing but I I'm gonna let you you um dissect that question in a minute um Chiara but I'm I'm just giving the listeners a sense of why I asked that question what that question's all about what was in my mind it was there's this sort of a a growing thing now that we could we we we don't know who to blame it's in the algorithm it's it's it's it's autonomous it's the agents we can't you know we can't pinpoint who's responsible for this and therefore I was thinking because of the nature of headsword I was thinking do they employ a body to sit in a a very senior important and relevant position so that yes they need to do their job they need to have the capability to do their job but if everything goes wrong that is the person they would use to kick out and I'm sure that happens uh as in all the time where shareholders are not touched you just put somebody in place or that take all the flack and kick them out.

SPEAKER_05 26:36

So I'm just wondering with this new development in terms of taking accountability and responsibility within the the deployment of AI there is a clear view that a CEO could be it could even be will always be the in quotes accountability individual that you need to put it on an individual if you need to put it on an individual so it doesn't affect the people a lot of the powers the shareholders in that space that's I think that's the reason why I asked that question but in in answering it like Sarah did and I'm sure you're sure you're gonna bring a whole different perspective to it that I have not thought of in that question because you're gonna bring how you've interpreted that question.

SPEAKER_01 27:24

So I'm gonna let you talk well I think no I like the the question because it took me actually your question took me in an entirely different direction which I haven't considered which is that of the shareholders and what is their role you know if we keep investing in technology where we know governance is weak where we know um you know choices are are um are unwise um especially in addictive design for teenagers just to mention a throw away hypothetical case sarcasm there but anyway if if shareholders continue to invest in these companies don't shareholders um bear some bear the brunt of some blame and and the answer is is is it's it's complicated and I don't know and the markets seem to reward lack of um governance for now um because it's very I mean there are few hard laws putting sanctions on uh on financial sanctions on boards um so there's two elements here one um a very a very uh sort of simple thing to add is that the liability it's complicated because AI is a complicated value chain you do not have just the guy or the guys who produce AI and the guys who buy it bad guys good guys that's not how it works I mean even even only um the the the the proposal you know the proposed uh distinction of uh the European Union between provider deployer uh importer of AI it's distributor operator I mean there's it's a very very complex chain in which um you bring a product be standalone AI or AI embedded in some other products to the market and then and then it changes and then it evolves and then the guy who uses it uses it in the bad in a bad way not according to terms of service so you have different responsibilities according to how you relate to the quote unquote AI product okay so there's there's one element of it's an ecosystem so there's many of us who are making making wrong choices making poor choices about AI okay so that that that has to be borne in mind when we we look at accountability then of course there's a conversation about governance governance done rightly correctly is powerful governance uh done poorly poorly executed is compliance theater and it serves no purpose but then you also have the um the element of um sort of what your your your guest brilliantly encapsulated in in in the quip you don't regulate a pen you regulate what comes out of a pen and and this is no different in a sense all types of accountability frameworks and governance frameworks and regulatory frameworks have to distinguish between the technology on the one hand and the deployment the what do we do with it element you know whatever role you have in this ecosystem in this chain of liability there's there's technology per se should always be neutral but or should be seen as high risk because you anticipate its use in certain contexts so the high risk categorization of AI it's always relative to context to use cases etc so that maps out um what your what what Sarah was saying what your guest was saying it's in all jurisdictions that I've been following this holds true you know it it it really does depend what you use it for and and as to your point about foresight which you also were discussing with with Sarah in in in your interview you you got it right essentially the law is having to look at likely misuse of AI as one of the things that you're regulating as one of the things you put liability on upon people for um you assuming you're a provider you have to be alert to how many ways your AI system could be abused and you have to put in place a preemptive sort of set of guard traits. So in that respect um when regulators move to regulate AI and to put accountability upon um boards they are doing it in a cautionary in a preemptive sort of um using a preemptive philosophy rather than after effects let's see let's have it out there in the market and let's see um what kind of damage we get so I think I've seen this in many in many patterns I've seen this patterns in many jurisdictions that's what I meant and more specifically if you want you know the the two um polar opposites if you want of of um how how to regulate AI philosophy you can look at the UK on the one hand and the European Union on the other. They're coming closer but they have they've started out at polar opposites um very quickly I think your your readers would like to your listeners would like to know that the AI the the UK has decided we're not going to have um uh a single piece of legislation that covers AI in general that makes no sense for us we're going to encourage its sector to look at how AI is used in the sector and we're gonna encourage and empower the regulators for that sector to issue guidelines. So essentially the UK has gone down the sectoral soft law model so for example you don't have a single piece of legislation in the UK you have the government says to the um financial sector regulator the FSA hang on guys you're in charge of regulating AI in the financial sector come up with a framework by this deadline and keep telling us how you're going to monitor it same with um the care sector same with other sectors of the financial sector so each sector gets um has delegated has delegated to the regulator for that sector the power to regulator yeah at the polar opposite we had the European Union has said no no no no no this is a horizontal problem everything it's it's you know it's like algebra everything will be infused with AI so we need a a single benchmark for absolutely everything that will contain AI in it's a this is how it started and now at the end of a line they realize actually maybe that wasn't such a smart idea actually so we've had a very important um you know um it's still being worked out 180 degrees yes exactly very still being worked out this is hot off the press isn't it we had trilogue yesterday Thursday today's Friday so and they actually you know the omnibus the the air omnibus was exactly this have we got this right you know the European the European Commission is probably very good at um at pulling a break they're they're good at pushing things forward but they're also good at at pulling a break and I respect the European Commission for taking taking um such a such a radical um sort of initiative of saying maybe we could look at doing AI regulation in a sectorial way. Yes it's gonna delay matters yes it's gonna create um it's gonna get people to pull their hair out because we thought we were going to have a single office a single standard a single conformity assessment now we're gonna have several of these each for a separate sector tell you what I mean we're here to do things the right way we're here to do the right uh to find the right balance between what what um what protects people and what encourages innovation so hats off to them um I haven't seen the final uh compromise text so I'm gonna hold to my horses on the actual content of this of this um compromise but I salute the courage to take a knife to something that seemed so good on paper and then it started to show cracks because it was decided before ChatGPT came out before a Gentiki came out it was you know it was already old by the time it was published in the in the official journal um generative AI was not out yet so it was it's still a very very good framework but the idea of looking at it sectorally is ace I think that we got right the European Union got that right but yeah I don't know if that answers exactly all of your question but certainly is the angle that's hot test at the moment horizontal or vertical.

SPEAKER_05 36:54

While you were talking and I was listening and then I had something in my head of this is how this is sort of going to be resolved and then you mentioned the word algebra and and I said aha that links to what I was thinking here in terms of the resolution for that. It links but so bear with me and I was thinking more you know like almost like the London tube map you know the London tube map yes and it's in terms of uh applying accountability responsibility to the supply chain and of what is involved and I think you you talked about the financial services will be looking at this the health sector will be looking at that but if we look at the London tube map if these things are plotted in the appropriate chain at that sort of at that point you can attach accountability responsibility and in that space this is where we need to act and this is what we need to do. And I'm imagining that some sort of map some sort of chart will need to be created for this new thing because it's so new and it's very different to anything that's gone before that we have to create almost this sort of graphical image in order to understand where not just the touch points where the responsibility where the accountability what was the chain that created us that allowed us to be in this position at that point and then from there we can put in the I don't know the various legislations the various what we need in place in order to know how to attach the the appropriate responsibility the appropriate accountability the the the the appropriate this is where you take charge of this or this is where I pass on the book. This is where it's not no longer my responsibility and your responsibility because we do know in I think in recent times it's quite recent actually in the US there was a case I I don't know the full details of it where a I think a young lady brought one of the social media organizations um to court and actually won which is kind of now the landmark case because she said felt that the use of it and the algorithms has created sort of mental anguish for her. Okay that's been appealed and obviously can't go into full much detail about that but if this if this map was in place uh there's something I don't know I'm I'm just talking because I'm talking at the top of my head based on listening to what you're saying and when you said this what do you think about my gibberish um Chiara?

SPEAKER_01 39:28

No no no no I think you're right I think um what you what you what you have in mind is a whole host of dependencies. Yes and unfortunately with these dependencies you seldom know them um ex ante you find out which bit is essential for which other bit once a product is in the market. So there's there's a mix there of regulating ex ante and regulating export. And this is why I say the tumor because it's crossovers it I I I hope I'm addressing your point. What you're saying is I would like the map before and I'm telling you you probably can't have it or whatever map I give you before you launch a product to the map I wasn't saying that you had it before I said it's um a developing thing that would enable us to know where things are there's no way you can have it before there's no kind of foresight but it's developing correct you start off with a map and you say okay don't put on the market products that are um you know addictive or harmful to teenagers' mental health you have that you you you you have that map going into the market and then you have to observe um post release you know post-market you have to keep monitoring and that is exactly the role of certain offices I mean you have the AI office in the UK that's doing exactly that you have the EU itself is is um building up its um AI office and that is exactly their role it's post market monitoring.

SPEAKER_05 41:02

And there's and then remember there's another line coming from elsewhere that will at some point cross over into whatever touch points and you will see why and how and that sort of thing but that's why I mentioned the tube map because I was imagining that's how it would work.

SPEAKER_01 41:16

Correct I mean at some point some other tube will be built as some other dependencies will will take place and it's and it's a map you have to keep updated and then um what is certainly very um challenging is the fact that you do have to do that for every sector and lots of products in you know encompass more than one sector and whenever you work with um institutions or bodies of some kind they have a mandate and you have they have to try and ensure they don't step on each other's toes and you end up having divisions where you should have a global overview of what's happening. So yes you you try and be good by being sectoral and then you create a bit of a bit of a problem by being too sectoral. And also don't forget that in in most jurisdictions you also have the subsidiarity issue meaning there's a central federal national government and then you have state level competence so when that is another both the European level and state level so you know who has the prerogative to to to legislate for certain matters what is the result for the overarching government and what is the you know the federal issue when you have the various touch another element which we're not going into but it's something that has to be born in mind.

SPEAKER_05 42:45

Um so yes I was just thinking with with the touch points and when you have the touch points and the various crossovers for instance if you have three or four crossovers that crossover that's when it's state led and that's when it's state managed and that's when it's state regulated so that everybody there's some kind of consistency there. That's just thinking aloud and I'm sure something like that will be mapped out in the future okay I think that's it.

SPEAKER_01 43:12

It was a pleasure