Ibán García del Blanco, negotiator of the European artificial intelligence law: “We have hit the table”

Ibán García del Blanco (León, 1977) can already say that he has made history in Europe. The socialist was the only Spanish MEP who participated in the marathon closed-door negotiations, almost 37 hours, the longest of this type of meeting in the history of the EU, which in December allowed the world's first complete artificial intelligence law to be agreed. . A rule that seeks above all to ensure that foundational models of generative artificial intelligence (AI) that may pose a systemic risk do not violate fundamental rights. An effort that was worth it. “It was now or never,” he emphasizes in an interview with EL PAÍS in Brussels, where the final wording of the law is now being supervised. It must be ready and translated into the 24 official languages ​​of the EU in the coming weeks so that the European Parliament and the States can ratify it before the dissolution of the hemicycle ahead of the European elections in June.

Ask. Why such a rush to close the AI ​​law?

Answer. From the perspective of defending our rights, principles and values, it was important that we had the regulations as soon as possible. There was a moral risk in not having it, we need to protect situations that are especially vulnerable with the use of this type of technology. And we knew that time was running out, that it could only be approved hypothetically during the Belgian presidency. [este primer semestre de 2024]. Furthermore, the Spanish presidency had been preparing this for a long time, it had a expertise accumulated that in practice was impossible to reproduce with another negotiator. And there is the international prestige of the EU: if we had made a mistake in this, we would have made an international fool of ourselves. In the same way that I believe that we have hit the table and said, here is Europe, if we had not carried out this norm, after the expectations that we had generated, after many regions of the world are looking towards us , among others the United States, with respect to how we regulate some things, we would have been a laughing stock. And we would probably have called into question the EU's own internal democratic model. So we all knew it was now or never.

If we had not carried out this rule we would have been a laughingstock

Q. There are still those who defend self-regulation of the sector.

R. We have the accumulated experience of what has happened in the technology sector in the last two decades: not setting standards, expecting them to regulate themselves is, in some way, a bit naive and produces enormous imbalances. We have a lot of evidence and, in fact, we are trying to go back some way, with laws such as that on digital services, or that on digital markets. In the case of AI, we are faced with a subject that has an intrinsic risk such as we have not known until now. We needed additional tools.

Q. The EU prides itself on being a pioneer in AI legislation. Aren't you worried about making a mistake about something that is also being legislated into the future, about things that don't even exist yet?

R. It is true that it is the only legal text that affirms the concept from an absolute, general, horizontal and complete perspective, at least it claims to do so. And for someone who, like me, comes from the world of law, in which there is a maximum rule, legal certainty, it is a challenge to think about a regulation that by nature will have to be flexible and adaptable to new realities, which It is, in itself, anathema. But we have to adjust our minds to the circumstances we are in, I do not think that AI is going to be the only subject in which we need regulation that can adapt to new realities or mutations. That is why it has been very intelligent to approach regulation from the perspective, not of the technology itself, but from the perspective of use, because that does allow us to establish general rules, immutable over time. Furthermore, it is a great competitive advantage that some values ​​also have importance in the regulation of other countries and, of course, in that second step in which we have to be immersed now, which is the establishment of an international, collective framework.

Q. 2024 is a super electoral year, almost half the planet is called to the polls. And AI is pointed out as one of the risk elements in the face of misinformation and manipulation of public opinion. Are we late with this law, which will only be fully applied at the end of 2026?

R. The law, by system, normally comes after reality exists. This is not always the case, there are times that it goes ahead and in that sense creates social and physical realities by itself, as happened in Spain with the gay marriage law, but in general it always lags behind. In a technology that moves so fast, it is almost inevitable that we go behind trying to cover the gaps that are generated along the way. But here it is not going to happen to us as with the phenomenon of dot com or that of the large content generating platforms, which were practically without any type of control, without any type of demand, paying zero euros in taxes and earning enormous amounts without having a minimum level of demand. This is not going to happen to us again.

Pretending that they regulate themselves is a bit naive and produces enormous imbalances

Q. Have we learned something then?

R. I would say yes, I would say that the world is also aware that we need standards. Far from creating imbalances because a certain region chooses not to regulate, I believe that the reality of international politics at this moment indicates that we are going to very soon have regulations very similar to the European ones and, above all, an international framework of minimum requirements very similar to those of Europe. the values ​​that we try to protect here.

Q. The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft over copyright issues, one of the keys to European law. Do you feel ratified?

R. Intellectual property law in the United States or the United Kingdom is less protective, leaving more things to the discretion of the courts. What we wanted precisely was to give the rights holders, who are basically the ones who generate wealth, who are the people who generate creation, the possibility of knowing with certainty if their content has been used without authorization and that is what the law provides. In that sense, it is a pioneer and will probably avoid a lot of litigation in the future or greatly facilitate the work of the courts themselves by identifying exactly what content has been violated.

Q. The doomsayers say that with so much regulation, Europe may lose the AI ​​race to the US or China

R. If state intervention or regulation had a decisive element in terms of technological development, then in China we would not have artificial intelligence, and it happens that they invest at this moment and develop models between 15 and 20 times what the company is doing. EU. Secondly, we are far behind the United States and China, and some other places, but fundamentally the United States and China, without there being any law; That is to say, it does not seem that this has been the decisive element in being able to perceive whether there is technological development or not. I believe that this fundamentally depends o
n us providing the resources that are needed to be able to develop our own models, and on us also being able, and this is also a message to the Member States, to collaborate, to cooperate, because we do not have the necessary muscle. , individually, to be able to compete abroad. And in the meantime, we will have a regulatory scheme that will protect our own principles, our own rights, and at the same time that will shape the market more in accordance with our own interests.

You can follow EL PAÍS Technology in Facebook and x or sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.

_