Artificial Intelligence, why Pignataro points the way on rules

"European regulatory fragmentation, usually cited as a handicap in the AI era, could prove to be a brake on the cascade. - explains Pignataro (writer's translation ed. ) - The same institutional frictions that slow down the adoption of AI also slow down every stage of the transmission mechanism: twenty-seven regulatory regimes, multiple legal traditions, rigid labour protections, and language barriers do not impede the revolution, but they do hinder the speed with which the revolution at one level spreads to the next'.

Rules, therefore, as regulatory friction, starting with those on the data economy. 'The Gdpr and the AI Act,' the entrepreneur continues, 'limit the learning of aggregate models that drive the accumulation of cross-cutting knowledge. [...] None of this is immunity. It is friction, and friction, in a cascade, is the difference between a managed transition and a structural disruption'.

Reading Pignataro's words is a pleasant awakening and gives one hope, as never before has there been such a level of intense, continuous and systematic counter-information and narration to the detriment of the rules, institutions, states and supranational organisations that, amidst a thousand and one difficulties and failures, have guaranteed stability, peace, freedom, progress, improved living conditions and health to an important part of humanity. This is a limpidly reasoned position and the obvious result of long experience on the front line of the market. This uncomfortable position, compared to the most shouted narrative at the moment or the resigned one of most, who see in the advent of AI an ineluctable end to democracy and the world as we know it, recognises and crystallises the guiding value of rules over the dynamics of technological progress.

A recognition that goes beyond those values that should already be taken for granted - safer ecosystems, fairer competition, higher protection for corporate rights and prerogatives - but that does not stop there. Because Pignataro also overcomes that distorted - and still unfortunately widespread - narrative that a capable and far-sighted entrepreneur is one who is always against the rules in favour of competitiveness.

My experience of more than 30 years in the data market and the world of rules that govern it, however, leads me to note that positions and sensitivities such as these are still not widespread. We therefore have neither the opportunity nor the luxury to delude ourselves: there is still much work to be done and the time factor is unfavourable.

On the one hand, rules continue to be the target of a crossfire of hammering delegitimisation and growing mistrust. This is especially so in recent times, with the various proposals for the dangerous simplification of pivotal rules such as the one on the circulation and protection of personal data (the GDPR), up to the newly introduced legislation on artificial intelligence (the AI Act). The trend is the retreat of guarantees, through the suspension of the effectiveness or entry into force of rules (as in the clamorous case of the reform project of the so-called 'e-privacy directive') and the questioning of the central role of law in social and economic life.

But without law it is not possible to live and it is not possible to do business, how can one fail to understand this simple concept? Just as medicine and surgery save lives, rules dictate the conditions for living in all spheres, personal and economic. It is another thing to denounce the distortions, the malpractice, the bad implementations of rules, the apodictic and obtuse judgements, the bigoted interpretations of rules, dogmatism, institutional sloppiness and incompetence. The legal and institutional systems are unfortunately full of them, as indeed every other human event is characterised by them, but this does not authorise us to mock and question the meaning of democratic institutions and the rules that govern them, starting with the constitutional charters, often written with the blood of those who preceded us.

On the other hand, all the more dangerous and futuristic versions of a technological development that, at the moment, only 'regulatory friction' - to paraphrase Pignataro - is capable of limiting and slowing down, not in order to hinder its development or to undermine the already weak chances of competing with non-European technological champions, remain in the background, but to allow us to reflect, to regain our awareness of Europe's greatness and to build policies that welcome and accompany technological progress without endangering democracy and freedom and thus our future.

Without giving in to alarmism and dystopian visions, this too must always be taken into account when questioning the value of rules. And if, even before that, we think of all the conflicts that rage in so many parts of the world, an unregulated technology is a technology that is available in an uncontrolled and uncontrollable manner even to those with the most dreadful of intentions.

We must start again from the rules. How? In our own small way, we could start by first of all writing them better and helping the legislator in this to defuse at source the temptations of those who, sometimes rightly, point to them as the cause of many of our ills - see in this sense the well-known and instrumentalised Draghi report on the competitiveness of the European Union. Simplification on the road of application and interpretation should then be pursued, trusting and strengthening the independent Authorities, from the Garante for the protection of personal data to the Antitrust, from the Acn to Agid. It would then be necessary to ensure the effectiveness, certainty and speed of national and transnational judicial action, also by training the judiciary in data and AI issues.

I see no other way. On the subject of the simplification of the rules, caution must be exercised, since they were adopted in line with the founding treaties of the Union and not lowered from above by an ad hoc commissioner. The GDPR, the AI Act and the other rules are the expression and sharing of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council and their multiple representatives. And before being adopted they passed incredibly powerful forks, overcoming anti-European lobbying forces as never before in the history of these institutions. Rules must not be simplified in a logic of fashionable deregulation, but must be strengthened in a pro-innovation key. The line is thin, but it makes all the difference.

What is missing, however, is a unified voice and action. No European institution or international organisation has yet openly advocated this necessary re-founding. This does not necessarily mean that the only way forward is to start again from fragmentation. Pignataro's paradox, which sees in the Europe of 27 a virtuous example of regulatory friction, may in the long run accelerate and prevail centrifugal forces from Europe, which are already in place. On the contrary, this must be the breaking point to start a real path towards a European AI. As regulatory governance, technological primacy, and ethical-value positioning.

In this journey, which will take time and courage, voices like Pignataro's can make a difference, just as Amodio's resistance can set an example to hi-tech entrepreneurs. Authoritative and far-sighted voices, expressing courageous concepts without fear, are what is needed today, capable also of standing up to the clamour of the strongest, to those who threaten blanket deregulation and escalation of terror.

I like to think, then, that all this is also the result of the Italia and European context from which this voice was raised, the result of a tradition of fundamental rights and constitutional values claimed and become social fabric and common heritage. Stefano Rodotà's thought, radical in its intentions but mild in its representation, will not be thwarted in this way. Entrepreneurs who decide to take strong and clear positions, who become solid cornerstones at a time when dissent is not fashionable, should therefore be thanked and supported, because from their words we too can draw the strength to persevere.

Chairman Panetta Consulting Group