The Vice President of the European Commission, responsible for competition and digital industry, Margrethe Vestager, reveals her plans to a group of newspapers, including Les Echos.
The European Commission will release its recommendations on artificial intelligence on February 19. What will be the main lines?
Artificial intelligence is the future but also the present. It is already very present in its music streaming or translation applications. Everyone is beginning to realize that it needs to be regulated. A European framework is necessary that all actors who want to intervene in the continent have to respect. Last year, we defined seven ethical principles for artificial intelligence “centered on the human being.” Currently, they are being tested by 350 companies. The challenge will be to transform these guidelines into regulations. I advocate a risk-based approach, with specific limitations for technologies that are considered “at risk.” We must ensure that consumers will have the means to verify that their rights are respected and act if they do not. You can also imagine specific requirements for the public sector.
“Under no circumstances should they impede freedom of expression or assembly, as reported in Hong Kong”
What technologies do you think about?
Related to health, and surveillance technologies. It will be important to ensure transparency about the data they process and its use, which will be a complex challenge given the mass of data and the capabilities of the self-learning machines.
Should mass facial recognition be prohibited?
I do not know yet. It is a very sensitive issue. It may be useful, but we should not rush. We need to define precisely the conditions of its possible use, its virtues and its limitations. Under no circumstances should they impede freedom of expression or assembly, as reported in Hong Kong. Some American states have also given it up after trying it, claiming that it is not yet technologically reliable enough.
Asia and the US are already investing a lot in artificial intelligence. How can Europe catch up?
It is undeniable that we must invest more, making sure that SMEs also benefit. We also need to better organize and coordinate our efforts, which are currently too diffuse. We have the means, the talent and the skills, and it is up to us to take advantage of them. It is also essential to encourage the exchange of data. It is up to us to give the companies clear rules so that they can do so without falling into the rules contrartarteles.
Paris, Berlin, Rome and Warsaw have just requested a review of the specific rules that govern the definition of the “relevant market” …
My starting point is clear: competition is essential to stimulate innovation and ensure reasonable choice and prices to consumers. However, we are aware that the markets are changing, that China's competition is intensifying and that our standards, which are over 22 years old, must evolve accordingly. Several issues raised in the letters of the four Member States are already being examined: we have initiated a debate on the “relevant market”.
The real question is whether these mergers can lead to the absence of a rival, and the answer is clearly no
Will it expand? Paris and Berlin believe that it is an overly narrow view of this definition that led to the rejection of the merger of its railroad giants, Alstom and Siemens.
Siemens-Alstom is a very bad example. That merger could have happened. It did not raise any problem in the affected markets: there would have been a minimum of competition in the train or subway market. But there were two problematic markets: that of high-speed trains and signaling, because there would have been no alternatives if prices had increased and quality declined. It was the choice of companies not to separate from these activities. It was not about defining the relevant market, but about the lack of alternatives for consumers.
Europe has been deprived of a giant capable of competing with China …
It is a mistake to say that European rules prevent the construction of champions. We have allowed mergers that have led to the creation of world leaders, in cement, beer, optics. But in all these cases there were reliable alternatives in the market. The real question is whether these mergers can lead to the absence of a rival, and the answer is clearly no. Here is the red line.
It has also received a proposal from the Netherlands for companies from third countries heavily subsidized by their States..
This proposal is very welcome. It is something we are investigating. It is not about closing our markets, but about ensuring that competition is not distorted, which is guaranteed for European companies by our Community rules on state aid. In the case of third-country companies, we must control them better and define the appropriate tools for this, for example, in case of complaints about low prices considered as dumping or in case of acquisitions of European companies. Complex task, which will lead to a White Paper scheduled for summer.
Margrethe Vestager: “Either we regulate the data or the big companies will dominate the world”