FRANCE24 — broadcast
20260920 103000 UTC
447 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] that they are possibly acting in good faith
[00:00:01] the main leading laboratories to or are they fueling a kind of fear marketing?
[00:00:05] And all of this, well, it's up to us to be vigilant somewhere. This
[00:00:08] fear marketing, as has been said previously, is something that
[00:00:12] can be favorable at a given time, which is
[00:00:15] precisely the one we are currently experiencing in the generative artificial intelligence markets.
[00:00:19] That is to say, when the actors move from what
[00:00:23] we call an emerging market phase to enter a growth phase, and where it is a matter
[00:00:27] of securing the investments that have been made in this
[00:00:30] sector in order to be able to appear sustainably as
[00:00:34] actors who are capable of dominating the competition and eliminating the
[00:00:37] others. Then very often we see actors
[00:00:42] different logic of AI in these markets calling for more regulation and very often they have to resort to
[00:00:44] fear marketing by saying somewhere regulate me because
[00:00:48] if you don't regulate me we will face
[00:00:51] big catastrophes and obviously when they take this
[00:00:54] approach with the
[00:00:56] speech, her State of the Union speech, regulator they try to incite the regulator to put in place
[00:01:00] mechanisms that are favorable to the technology, to the standardization of the
[00:01:03] technology on which they have bet a lot and when we know that
[00:01:07] today indeed there is a big competition on two very different visions
[00:01:11] both technologically and ultimately on what can be done with
[00:01:14] artificial intelligence between what is the taste between two imperialist blocs, which is the American
[00:01:18] bloc on one side and the Chinese bloc on the other
[00:01:21] hand, who have made different technological choices and who consider very
[00:01:25] differently because at the American level we are really on
[00:01:29] the edge of... border where at the Chinese level we are
[00:01:32] more on it as a kind of common good and well if I put
[00:01:36] in place a regulation that is favorable to my technological
[00:01:39] choices, not only do I protect myself but I also
[00:01:44] the phenomenal amount of exclude de facto actors who have made other technological choices and notably the Chinese
[00:01:47] IPO at this point in actors, so indeed this fear marketing can be
[00:01:50] savagely used for this purpose. These are therefore giants who pretend to be afraid
[00:01:54] because they know how to pilot drones with to call for tailor-made regulation
[00:01:57] to block any form of competition. Well,
[00:02:00] personally, I don't agree with this interpretation. Both
[00:02:04] Dario Amodey, the CEO of Anthropic
[00:02:07] and Sam Altman, the one from Open, had
[00:02:11] mentioned years before founding their current company that the
[00:02:15] greatest danger humanity faced was the development of AI and
[00:02:18] uh when we talk about
[00:02:23] that artificial intelligence when we talk about these developments uh I don't think it really
[00:02:26] makes sense for them to slow down. Anthropic is the company that...
[00:02:30] in the history of capitalism has grown the fastest, they have grown from
[00:02:33] a revenue of 10 billion at the beginning of the year to 60 billion, it's unprecedented, but it took
[00:02:37] years and years to do the equivalent, so I don't think they
[00:02:41] have an interest in slowing down their
[00:02:43] growth. He says
[00:02:46] precisely
[00:02:48] they pretend to want to stop and ask for tailor-made regulation
[00:02:51] for but if it slows them down it slows down growth
[00:02:57] no, I'm sorry, excuse me, but I wanted to tell you anyway that I'm afraid. But I'm not afraid of
[00:03:00] AI, I'm afraid of what Mrs. von der Leyen declared, we'll come to Mrs.
[00:03:04] von der, that's in the 3rd part, I'm afraid that we don't have AI in Europe and I think
[00:03:08] that's what they are doing today, keeping our heads underwater by installing a
[00:03:12] governance piloted by the United States which will hinder the
[00:03:15] development of AI in other countries of the world and by the way, it's we can draw a parallel with
[00:03:18] sustainable development, for a long time the developed countries kept the heads of
[00:03:22] underdeveloped countries underwater with environmental
[00:03:25] regulations and the countries of the south said but let us grow, it's a
[00:03:29] debate we've seen... for almost 30 years and well we're going to witness the same debate today, except that today the
[00:03:33] underdeveloped countries in terms of AI are us and so I think the real subject
[00:03:36] of this debate is not American because we are talking about an
[00:03:40] economic and political debate in the United States, it is a global
[00:03:43] debate on global governance, perhaps tomorrow we need to
[00:03:46] imagine for AI and certainly not American. No,
[00:03:50] it's good for you to react, yes, but in the end,
[00:03:53] uh, you never talk about the people, about the citizens who watch this. I started
[00:03:57] with that, I talked about techno-shock, I talked about civilization.
[00:04:00] Excuse me, I think the real subject, however, is
[00:04:03] how we are going to protect people and make them more intelligent in the face of these machines, we must
[00:04:07] educate, who talked about education there, no one, we talked about regulation.
[00:04:11] I think we have a card to play anyway, because the Chinese and the Americans
[00:04:14] slow down and somehow don't agree on what needs to be done, it's a cold
[00:04:18] war and we will need counter-powers, we will need people capable
[00:04:21] of evaluating and having AI tools perhaps for
[00:04:24] security, before perhaps talking about this clash between China and the United States and
[00:04:29] behind, most of the then about Europe. Sam Altman proposes a system for reporting incidents inspired by
[00:04:32] aviation with
[00:04:34] Wednesday in her State of the Union mechanisms comparable to those of
[00:04:36] voilà, agents who are supposed to verify this in the
[00:04:40] United States, is it the right way? It's a good way, but it must
[00:04:43] be external people because they themselves said at the same time
[00:04:47] West, China has about yes that he proposed their own
[00:04:50] tool. From the beginning I've been ethical, excuse me, you
[00:04:54] are completely naive, madam, the public affairs and communications departments
[00:04:58] of these companies employ thousands
[00:05:00] of people, among the best lawyers in the world, the best
[00:05:02] paid.
[00:05:06] I think that this regulation that is proposed
[00:05:09] warning, AI has an enormous part of factualism in this approach. I think this regulation is
[00:05:13] useful, that's what perhaps differentiates us, not if it comes from them, but
[00:05:17] that's what I'm saying too, we must not let, however,
[00:05:20] we must not let the Americans propose their own
[00:05:23] regulation, otherwise what do they do, the tools, the regulation and the insurance,
[00:05:27] they will manage everything, so that's certainly not what should be done, they have China opposite them who disagrees
[00:05:31] who will fight against them, that's where we perhaps have a role to play, saying attention, we need
[00:05:35] an outsider, they asked for outsiders,
[00:05:38] the Americans proposed, Altman and Dario asked
[00:05:44] exactly and the problem they have is that currently the administration is completely
[00:05:47] anti-regulation and I will propose a summary point between my two
[00:05:51] colleagues which is that I completely agree that the subject of Europe is
[00:05:55] extremely important, Europe must accelerate and the reason why Europe does not appear
[00:05:58] in the speeches of Dar mode of Samman is that Europe currently
[00:06:02] is years behind, we will
[00:06:05] talk about it, it's simply not finished, but Europe has a regulation, absolutely, but don't
[00:06:08] worry, we will talk about it, we have time to talk about it, I just want to tell you that
[00:06:12] artificial intelligence also feeds an immense
[00:06:16] financial speculation, valuations are soaring, investments are
[00:06:20] multiplying, announcements are coming one after another, OpenAI
[00:06:23] also announced last weekend that it had postponed its
[00:06:26] IPO, Julien Pillaot, was the
[00:06:30] moment
[00:06:31] ill-chosen?
[00:06:35] Is there a good time to launch an IPO? If
[00:06:39] we knew, if we could demonstrate it scientifically.
[00:06:43] Uh, the fact remains that indeed at OpenAI today there is still a problem
[00:06:46] which is that they cannot demonstrate the profitability of their
[00:06:50] models, while Anthropic has managed to reach this profitability
[00:06:53] threshold in the last two quarters, so
[00:06:57] launching an
[00:07:00] history when you have your main competitor
[00:07:03] today who is preparing his IPO
[00:07:06] at an interval and who, he exact, can have an
[00:07:09] IPO, thank you Karina for correcting me. Uh,
[00:07:13] but he, well, has fundamentals that seem, from the investors'
[00:07:16] point of view, perhaps a little more solid, this would be a little bit subsidiary and
[00:07:20] so OpenAI made the decision, it seems to me, quite
[00:07:24] reasonable to postpone this IPO to a little later
[00:07:27] in order to perhaps make up for its delay on the path to profitability. Nevertheless,
[00:07:31] the investments
[00:07:35] companies, and especially what we call the Magnificent Seven,
[00:07:39] these are the seven biggest American artificial intelligence companies, continue
[00:07:43] to increase year after year to reach dizzying amounts. We will
[00:07:46] probably be at the end of 2026 at more than
[00:07:49] 750 billion of cumulative investments in artificial intelligence in
[00:07:53] infrastructure and model training, it's
[00:07:56] colossal and it can outline the contours of a bubble about
[00:08:00] which we can ask ourselves whether it can burst or whether it will perhaps deflate in the coming months
[00:08:04] or years and what is your diagnosis on that? Will this bubble burst
[00:08:08] Julien Piot?
[00:08:10] There, similarly, if I were tomorrow that would be and
[00:08:14] probably I would take stock market orders that would allow me to bet
[00:08:18] on the future that I do not know, but no
[00:08:21] no, joking aside, obviously, uh, my
[00:08:24] current diagnosis is that there are obviously
[00:08:28] risk factors for the bursting of the bubble and notably the lack of profitability of many
[00:08:32] models among actors who are specialized in generative artificial intelligence who have
[00:08:35] difficulty making their models profitable, but there are also factors
[00:08:38] that make this bubble quite robust
[00:08:42] in fact to be able to somehow resist for a certain time and
[00:08:46] among these factors there is one that I particularly follow which
[00:08:49] is the circularity of investments in artificial
[00:08:53] intelligence. Behind this somewhat technical term, what is there? There is the idea that
[00:08:56] all these major artificial intelligence actors are all
[00:09:00] interdependent because they all have either stakes in the
[00:09:03] companies or cross-investments with the
[00:09:06] companies or supplier-customer partnerships with the
[00:09:10] companies and so there we could see actors like
[00:09:14] Google, like Microsoft, like OpenAI, like Nvidia, as being
[00:09:17] competitors, in truth, they are rather competitors, these
[00:09:21] are companies that compete on certain market segments, but in
[00:09:25] truth they are all jointly engaged in a kind of community of
[00:09:28] destiny, because they have cross-investments, and these
[00:09:32] companies, which are the ones that have the most interest in artificial
[00:09:35] intelligence becoming profitable and sustainably profitable, are also
[00:09:39] the ones that are most interested today in the valuations of the companies they
[00:09:43] own also increasing, so for the bubble to deflate, these actors
[00:09:47] would ultimately, somehow, no longer believe in it themselves, and there is
[00:09:50] little chance of that. This
[00:09:53] interdependence is very improbable, do you agree? It prevents
[00:09:56] the bursting of this bubble. It sells these chips to
[00:10:00] people who make models, so they have to make models to buy the chips, basically it's a loop like
[00:10:03] that. On the other hand, for the gold rush, it was those who made the picks and shovels who won,
[00:10:07] so Nvidia will always win, the others will pass and now
[00:10:11] they have reached a size that... too big to fail, as they say, what we said
[00:10:14] at the time of the subprime, of the real estate loans, the bubble had
[00:10:18] burst at the time, if they burst there, it's the whole American economy
[00:10:21] that collapses, the 2 % of American growth. Two of the
[00:10:25] percent of American growth are the data centers invested in the
[00:10:29] United States, there are still two points on which I wanted to draw your attention, I agree with what has just been
[00:10:33] said, the first is the extraordinary hubris of these bosses, they have
[00:10:36] created brilliant companies in a very short time from nothing, that incites a form of
[00:10:40] madness I think, in any case a surpassing of oneself and it's quite human, I can
[00:10:44] understand it and it has been seen in the history of economics a thousand times from Rockefeller
[00:10:47] to uh Steve Jobs, well there you go. And the
[00:10:51] second point is that the two phenomena that were predicted to us in 2022,
[00:10:55] massive job destruction and productivity gains that were supposed to
[00:10:58] happen very early for jobs and a little more recently for
[00:11:02] productivity, did not happen. So what major groups observe, we can
[00:11:06] think so, but for now no, what major groups who are clients of these AI solutions
[00:11:10] and notably of those from Anthropic observe is that they haven't, they have pilot projects, they have tested
[00:11:14] deployments, they have created new products but they have not had the expected
[00:11:17] productivity gains. This I think is a major parameter, this
[00:11:21] might change with robotics that is advancing full throttle. I have done a lot of
[00:11:24] robotics. Affective, social, etc., the Chinese show great
[00:11:28] strength, you see people on TikTok folding laundry or doing
[00:11:31] sewing machine robots, there are robots that will replace workers, that's where
[00:11:35] the blue-collar school will build them for textiles for example and it's in India and
[00:11:39] China, they will have a flood, we are talking about 70% at the world forum,
[00:11:43] but for how long, how long will it take to have a few
[00:11:46] years, by then the bubble, by
[00:11:49] then you no longer have, you have a bubble necessarily in the middle because these investments. except
[00:11:53] that there is a moment of market clarification before the arrival of robotics, that's
[00:11:57] it, that's my feeling. but you want
[00:11:59] to react?
[00:12:01] No, indeed, just to add a small
[00:12:04] nuance to what has just been said, do we realize
[00:12:09] capital needed, of materials needed and energy needed to
[00:12:12] replace all human labor, blue-collar or white-collar, with
[00:12:16] machines? So indeed, at some point, there will still be conflicts
[00:12:19] of use that will appear and will slow down
[00:12:22] the progression of this phenomenon that
[00:12:25] has been described, that's it. To what extent will it
[00:12:28] slow down? The story remains to be written, but it's true that there are always forces that pull
[00:12:31] back, and those who predicted the
[00:12:34] replacement of one in two workers just
[00:12:38] 3 years ago when generative intelligence appeared in
[00:12:42] certain sectors today can look back at their words and say, "Well,
[00:12:45] in truth, it didn't work as expected," simply because
[00:12:49] the productivity gains weren't there, because there are forces pulling back in the market that make it
[00:12:53] not necessarily possible, and because it turned out to be much more expensive than we
[00:12:57] thought in use, or there's more to it than that, because we're not going to replace tasks,
[00:13:01] so we saw very well, for example, with Geoffrey Hinton, a Turing
[00:13:04] Award winner, who said 6 years ago, a mathematics prize in
[00:13:08] physics, in physics perhaps, to clarify, because the Turing Award
[00:13:12] is a computer science award, but there is also the Nobel Prize in
[00:13:14] physics, and he had predicted 10 years ago, in
[00:13:18] 2016, that radiologists would disappear from the planet because
[00:13:21] we knew how to detect early cancers on X-rays.
[00:13:25] However, the opposite happened, not at all, there is even a shortage of
[00:13:29] radiologists in the United States, it is a profession where they have been able to use these
[00:13:33] tools in their expertise, because it was just a task,
[00:13:36] it was reading X-rays, but when you are a radiologist, you welcome
[00:13:39] patients, evaluate what the machine says, whether it is correct or not, re-examine
[00:13:43] other images and so it is much more and it is perhaps 1/5th
[00:13:47] of their profession and so in the profession it will be necessary to understand for everything that
[00:13:51] concerns everything that is about white-collar and gray-collar.
[00:13:55] It will be necessary to understand the limit well, that is, not to replace
[00:13:58] humans because we need humans in the loop and not just for security
[00:14:01] problems, and that is the human-machine relationship
[00:14:05] and I think we don't work enough on that, in any case, it's said and thank you for this clarification,
[00:14:09] meanwhile, Donald Trump, he wants to continue, he wants the
[00:14:13] United States, as you said earlier, to maintain its lead.
[00:14:17] Uh, can American AI giants really slow
[00:14:20] down in this competition, notably
[00:14:23] uh with China?
[00:14:26] One, there are two problems from the point of view of companies, there is a legal
[00:14:30] problem that companies in the United States
[00:14:33] are subject to antitrust laws which are
[00:14:36] anti-competition laws that mean they cannot
[00:14:40] voluntarily and legally decide to coordinate to
[00:14:44] slow down, that's why they asked for American intervention, and then there is
[00:14:47] obviously the subject of China. The subject of
[00:14:50] China is delicate because China has extremely high engineering
[00:14:53] skills and very great manufacturing
[00:14:57] skills, but China still has two very
[00:15:00] big disadvantages, the first is that of export
[00:15:04] controls, namely that the computing units called
[00:15:07] GPUs that are mostly developed in the
[00:15:12] 20 times less if we count in performance than the
[00:15:15] United States, and so they are still playing with a very very big disadvantage and
[00:15:19] the second is that China currently is a little bit
[00:15:22] uh the image that... I like to keep in mind is
[00:15:26] the United States is the tow truck and China is the car
[00:15:29] behind, in the sense that it is much easier
[00:15:32] to develop models by copying a little
[00:15:35] bit, by challenging. Not being a leader exactly, using existing
[00:15:39] models to develop a model that is
[00:15:42] similar, it comes from a mechanism called distillation, which is the
[00:15:45] training of a model on the results
[00:15:49] of another model, so you use the results of ChatGPT to train a model
[00:15:53] that approaches this competence, I think what
[00:15:57] you say is very true, but we need to put it simply, uh, it's a
[00:16:00] race for AI between China and the
[00:16:03] United States, Europe does not exist. Mensch also says not
[00:16:06] to. Here, we are talking about
[00:16:08] China. China absolutely wants to win this
[00:16:12] battle, it is determined to do it with open source models
[00:16:16] that paralyze the Americans because it is a
[00:16:19] distribution, that's what it is, which is very
[00:16:23] aggressive, uh, they have a different way of functioning, they
[00:16:26] do not have this scrutiny from the media and markets
[00:16:29] on their developments, they can offer AI free of charge to allied
[00:16:33] countries, thus forming coalitions, uh, so I think it's a battle, uh,
[00:16:37] uh, I want to say definitive and ultimate, because if there's one
[00:16:41] use of AI that doesn't suffer from dispute, it's war. Today,
[00:16:44] Thales has just announced that it is releasing a competing system to Palantir's
[00:16:48] for massive targeting of targets, so to go from 100 targets to 100
[00:16:52] targeted targets in a day, that's what Palantir allows the
[00:16:56] American army today. NATO has just become a client of Palantir. The question tomorrow is
[00:17:00] who will have the best weapon systems to pilot their drones, their planes,
[00:17:04] etc. So it's a battle to the death, I want to say, between the two blocs. It's a
[00:17:07] cold war, you have a very small problem too anyway, which is that open source allows for
[00:17:11] enormous criminality. So not only will it
[00:17:14] help with war and they will beat everyone and China, that
[00:17:18] gives the information because you can do anything with that. There are even
[00:17:22] now warriors, whether they are in Russia or Ukraine, who sell
[00:17:26] themselves for a lot of money in Mexico to go help drug cartels
[00:17:31] AI. We will find that everywhere in the hot spots of the planet
[00:17:35] with mercenaries capable of piloting that. So all the hackers,
[00:17:39] really, by leaving these objects open, I think we are creating
[00:17:42] a serious problem and China will have this problem.
[00:17:46] If Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are to meet at the end of the
[00:17:49] month, we imagine that artificial intelligence should
[00:17:53] be on the agenda of their discussion. What can we expect from this face-to-face?
[00:17:56] What is delicate is that on Trump's side he announced very
[00:18:00] clearly that he really didn't want
[00:18:03] to slow down AI so
[00:18:06] he will probably... try to do as
[00:18:09] little as possible. Uh on the Chinese side too, they
[00:18:12] think for them it's an, as my
[00:18:16] colleague said, it's existential and if
[00:18:18] Anthropic or OpenAI are first, they see it as an existential
[00:18:22] threat to their national sovereignty and therefore
[00:18:25] uh my hope is that there will be
[00:18:28] discussions on these issues of potentially
[00:18:31] slightly slowing down the development but I don't expect as much from
[00:18:35] it quickly. There are signs that show that the
[00:18:39] Chinese president is adopting the verbiage of Anthropic and so on, saying
[00:18:43] that he would like to have external
[00:18:46] committees to verify what AI is doing, which is still
[00:18:49] a sign of listening. Julien Pillot, I hear you
[00:18:53] react very briefly, please. Briefly, no, but today there is little
[00:18:56] reason to think that
[00:19:00] investments and the AI race can slow down when you have two imperialist
[00:19:03] blocs clashing like the United States and China.
[00:19:07] Simply because it outlines the game of a prisoner's dilemma where
[00:19:11] neither has an interest in slowing down if they are not certain that
[00:19:14] the other will also slow down, at the risk of shooting themselves in the
[00:19:18] foot, and where there is a second phenomenon that is added on top, called the tragedy
[00:19:22] of horizons, that is to say that currently, and it has been
[00:19:25] said earlier, investments in AI support
[00:19:28] American growth and to a lesser extent Chinese growth, so these are
[00:19:32] important and short-term gains that are certain and the risks that
[00:19:36] exist are more distant, vague,
[00:19:39] uncertain, so when you combine these two reasons,
[00:19:43] there is little hope that the states, whether they are
[00:19:46] the United States or China, will ask their AI champions to
[00:19:52] stop the fun, but it's very important that they talk about it and we start a debate
[00:19:56] on it, because Europe has something to play in this
[00:19:59] diplomacy between these two great states that do not want to
[00:20:02] regulate. So, precisely, Europe, as we said, is
[00:20:06] AI models are... designed by the United States and China,
[00:20:11] address, the President of the European Commission once again insisted on
[00:20:15] the regulation of artificial intelligence,
[00:20:17] listen:
[00:20:21] the AI Act is of course a crucial element for putting in place
[00:20:25] safeguards, and it puts Europe in a position to shape global
[00:20:28] efforts to address this challenge. We will therefore
[00:20:32] intensify our efforts alongside our like-minded partners such
[00:20:35] as Canada, the United Kingdom,
[00:20:38] and others. We want to join forces on
[00:20:42] model evaluation, verification, early
[00:20:47] security, and much more, and I would invite
[00:20:51] discuss how we can support current industry efforts
[00:20:55] to moderate the race for
[00:20:57] innovation,
[00:21:02] so everyone wants to react very briefly, no I find these comments
[00:21:04] inadmissible,
[00:21:07] she represents us, she is Europe, she should say exactly the opposite, she should
[00:21:11] say our regulations have not worked, the AI Act has been half
[00:21:14] applied, there is a consensus to say that today it is no longer relevant, it has
[00:21:18] 11 directives and 50 rules. the European Union on AI and data protection,
[00:21:21] of which a good half are obsolete and the other half are blocking our businesses
[00:21:25] on the ground, she should say: my God, let's catch up, and then she tells us
[00:21:29] we need to slow down because maybe it presents a risk,
[00:21:32] honestly, I find that the call for regulation and
[00:21:36] caution and deceleration and countering with the
[00:21:39] countries that shared our values, she didn't say we were decelerating I think, she said we need to
[00:21:43] curb the development of AI, it's in her
[00:21:46] but she has no power over what others decide to do. We
[00:21:50] can distinguish two elements, which are the frontier and Europe, Europe is so far behind the
[00:21:53] frontier that indeed we need to accelerate the 600 billion in capital, I don't know
[00:21:57] how much it is but it's 10 billion maybe, and so Europe clearly needs to
[00:22:00] accelerate but also I think that we need a
[00:22:04] discourse and at the same time where
[00:22:07] we both move forward, we accelerate in Europe, we make
[00:22:10] better laws on what allows us to
[00:22:13] build data centers, so for example
[00:22:16] permitting, building permits, etc.
[00:22:20] we allow financial engineering similar to what has been done in the
[00:22:24] United States and at the same time we need to have an appropriate discourse on
[00:22:28] the risks on the frontier and on regulation. Laurence de Viller, is Europe
[00:22:32] in a position to shape global regulatory efforts, can
[00:22:36] we regulate a technology that we don't produce for now, no we don't know
[00:22:40] how to do it, we need research and research is the poor relative, so the economy wants to play
[00:22:43] all by itself, the day when AI will be even smarter and no one will be able to
[00:22:47] know what is really happening, we will be well advanced. We need measures for
[00:22:51] evaluation, for example I have PhD students who work on benchmarks,
[00:22:54] these are test sets and on which
[00:22:58] we test AI and often it has already ingested it,
[00:23:01] so when it answers it's not by reasoning but it's by copy-pasting in its memory somewhere,
[00:23:04] so we need measures everywhere to effectively
[00:23:08] find where the real pitfalls are and manage to
[00:23:12] evaluate correctly, we need audits, we need insurers and it shouldn't
[00:23:15] only be the United States doing this and that we are also in the loop. Julien
[00:23:19] Pilot, does Europe impose its standards on the rest of the world as it
[00:23:22] did for example with data
[00:23:24] protection?
[00:23:28] In the case of AI, it will be complicated because indeed, to be able to impose what
[00:23:32] is called a "Brussels effect", that is to say to impose normative power on the rest
[00:23:35] of the world, two things are needed: a market that is absolutely essential
[00:23:39] for us to use the depth of this
[00:23:42] market to pressure foreign actors to adopt the standards
[00:23:46] and comply with the notes, we are still a little bit and then also we need to...
[00:23:50] see beyond beautiful laws, beautiful rules, the ability to enforce them by
[00:23:53] engaging in a power struggle with the most powerful states and/or companies
[00:23:57] of the states in question, and these last few years have rather shown some signs
[00:24:00] of weakness at this level because in fact we are extremely dependent on what
[00:24:04] the states or companies we are talking about can provide us elsewhere, if only
[00:24:08] to think of Starlink today which has become absolutely essential on the Ukrainian
[00:24:12] front line, well that somewhat slows down the desires we
[00:24:16] might have regarding Elon Musk on certain matters and
[00:24:19] certain. compliance issues that certain matters could have, especially regarding
[00:24:22] the DSA for X, so here we are, today we are a bit in a weak situation
[00:24:26] because our dependency schemes are such technologically that we are afraid
[00:24:30] in truth to follow what is called a kill switch, that is, that
[00:24:33] foreign actors deprive us of access to
[00:24:36] certain services that have become absolutely essential for us, yes in our
[00:24:40] daily lives, listen, that will be the last word, thank you very much to all four of you,
[00:24:44] Laurence Devillaire, professor in artificial intelligence and ethics at the Sorbonne, Julien
[00:24:48] Pilot, you were remotely. researcher at linesc
[00:24:52] Edouard Filali, co-founder and CEO of Jean, communication agency and
[00:24:56] digital strategy specialist, Simeon Campos,
[00:24:59] you are an entrepreneur in AI, thank you for following us,
[00:25:03] the news continues on France 24.
[00:29:33] They are Kurdish people who live between fear and uncertainty,
[00:29:36] waiting for
[00:29:38] the unknown.
[00:29:41] has been organized to give them clothes.
[00:30:07] It's 1 p.m. in Paris, welcome, we are together until 2 p.m., you
[00:30:11] are watching Paris Direct, I had a doubt, we will talk about Germany in
[00:30:14] this edition, two regions are voting today, the stakes are such that the Chancellor
[00:30:18] canceled his departure for New York, he called an emergency
[00:30:21] meeting, the AFD could make new gains after its
[00:30:24] victory in Saxony, even if the far left is very mobilized in
[00:30:28] Berlin. Facing the latest developments in Yemen, Donald Trump
[00:30:31] cut short his weekend. The Houthis are increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia and
[00:30:35] are advancing eastward, how far do they want to go, what is the kingdom's
[00:30:38] ability to stem their advance, we will discuss this with David
[00:30:42] Rigolet Rose who will be with us in a
[00:30:44] moment.
[00:30:46] It's effervescence in Paris and not only, 5 days before the Pope's
[00:30:50] arrival, the enthusiasm is strong, it was necessary to extend the security perimeter for
[00:30:53] the open-air mass that will be celebrated on the Place de la Concorde,
[00:30:57] 60,000 people are expected.