So we also worked on this exemption back in the days.
It's comparable with our work on the cyber resilience act
and the product liability directives.
So that we wanted to protect individual developers.
We wanted to protect their communities,
projects to not fall under regulations
if they release something under a free software license.
Before we start of the podcast,
we would like to say thank you to all of you
who support the FSFE's work of money.
Working for software freedom
and producing podcasts cost money.
Please consider supporting us with our donation
on the FSFE.org/donate and in the show notes.
Okay. So let's get started. Yes. Yes. Hello.
And welcome to the software freedom podcast.
The podcast is presented to you by the Free Software Foundation
Europe. We are a charity that empowers users to take control
of technology. I'm Bonnie Mehring.
And I'm here with my colleague Alex. Hi, Alex.
Thank you so much for being here. Yeah, thanks for having me.
I'm happy to be again in the podcast episode talking with you
about policy topics of the European Union.
And today we will talk about the AI act and latest developments here.
So Alex, we are nearly there in the summer pass.
But this year it does not really look like a good start
for the European Parliament or at least at a relaxing start.
Can you tell us what's happened in the last weeks?
Yeah, absolutely. And so a few years ago,
we debated around the regulation of AI and the result was the famous AI act.
And in August, the first regulations of the AI act will enter into force.
And followed by other regulations going to be implemented by summer
2026. So we are now basically in the moment where the first
regulations of the AI act enter into force and companies have to
fulfill the obligations from the AI act. But companies are now
attacking the AI act and they go with a so-called stop the clock
attempt. So they want that the AI act is going to be
paused at least for the next two years so that they can implement
the rules of the AI act. This actually basically,
yeah, one could say an attack on the whole AI act.
So they said, want to have this stopped, which would mean
all the regulations and rules the decision-makers came up with just
recently would not enter into force.
Nothing would happen. AI would remain unregulated
for the next years. And that's something, yeah, which
has huge effects in particular on consumers in the opinion, but also
worldwide. Since I think the rules that became up with
in the AI act have a reason, right? So since we want to regulate AI and
we see actual debates what AI is doing and how it could harm.
And thus we need this regulation. And that's why we need to talk about this
attempt. Why it's there, what it would mean and also how civil
society reacted on this since this attempt by the companies
was not a standalone activity, but civil society actors also reacted on this
yesterday and countering this and asking the commission
to stand and keep the position to let the AI act enter into force.
So a lot is happening. I think we will walk through this step by step, right?
Yeah, that's a good idea. I think so as well.
Because I was like, oh my god, there's a lot of time
passing by. And I mean, there are only a few days left until August. So
and until the AI act starts. So but let's start with the beginning.
Can you vary briefly outline what the scope of the AI act is? I know it's a
document with over 100 pages, but is there a way to break this down for
me and our listeners? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the European Union
were discussing AI already a few years ago. So I think now it's
even seven or eight years ago when the parliament even created an
own committee where they discussed AI, the commission were running tons of
consultations and so on and so forth. And then they started to work on the law,
drafting this law. And during that time when the law was
discussed then in the institutions, even after the commission proposal,
all of these famous LLM's popped up, right? So and thus they also want to
regulate this. And in the nutshell, the European Union came up with a
regulation for high risk AI, but also they regulated so-called
general purpose AI. And the rules on these general purpose AI,
they are going to be entered into force in August. So this is what we are
facing now. And on the high risk AI, this is going to enter into force
next year, 2026. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, before we dive into this, before we dive into this,
what is general purpose of AI and what is high risk AI? Yeah, a general purpose.
Yeah, a general purpose AI is basically what we
is something like chat GPT or these large language models, right? Hacking phase or
all of these. This is general purpose AI, but also this general purpose AI, but also
other AI that reaches certain thresholds. So to say when it's
interfering with fundamental rights, for example, or if it's going
beyond asking questions, get the answer and can
live is it? Yeah, but if this AI takes decisions, for example, right? So
and which could lead to serious harms. So then it's called a high risk AI.
And then there are more obligations on how you need to handle this. So there are
transparency rules and there are like which kind of data could be used in
which way do you need to inform consumers about it? And all of these kind of
like regulations are there. And in particular, how data could be used in
which way? This is what people discuss. There's also currently a debate
ongoing about copyright in this regard, right? And one could say it's not a
completely regulated AI. There are also ongoing other discussions. There is
the so-called omnibus package so proposed by the Commission to
simplify rules for companies in general. Also AI plays a role here.
We have a copyright debate in the European Parliament on AI. There was also the
AI Liability Act, which was withdrawn. So there is a lot of other AI
discussions ongoing and companies now fear that they have unclear rules to
follow and that they what they set up today is going to be
reformed in a few months or in a very short time. And so that's why they
for administrative burdens and for like over regulation they want to
pause this. So and also the RQ that this is your losing jobs blah blah blah
that's clear. They are losing money. But also the RQ is digital
sovereignty. Since they say look it's the European market which is regulated
while other markets are not regulated in particular at the US market.
And that's why we are losing crowned and by thus we are losing digital
sovereignty. So that's part of their argumentation. And that's how they look
on those regulations on high risk and the general purpose of AI.
But most of the lobby attempts are like pretty short term oriented on this
general purpose AI. So basically what we know as
chat GPT and we'd like that. So this is basically what we are talking about now.
My last question in the regard to AI act is
I research how free software is standing in it. And I find out
the regulation does not apply to AI systems released under free and open-source licenses.
Unless they are placed on the market or put into service as high-risk AI systems
or as an AI system that falls under some of special articles. Anything you want to amend
here or to add. Yeah so and that's the interesting part now. So we also worked on this
exemption back in the days. It's comparable with our work on the cyber resilience act and the
product liability directives. So that we wanted to protect individual developers. We wanted to
protect their communities projects to not fall under regulations if they release something under
free software license. And this is for example used by Big Tech. And then you as a small project
have to take the applications and not Big Tech. This is a short break for our own cause.
Thank you for listening to the software freedom podcast. Working for software freedom and
producing podcasts costs money. Please consider supporting us with a donation
under fsfe.org/donate and then the show notes.
And this is for example used by Big Tech. And then you as a small project have to take the
applications and not Big Tech. That's the status and around this group which I just said that they
send the letter to the European Commission to pause the AI act to stop the clock. So they want
to postpone all of this as said at least for two years. But it's also interesting how they
argue. So again, so it's on a loose innovation power that they will do with jobs and so on and
so forth. And it's also interesting if you look at the investments that have been already put into
AI in the last years. So to say there is a lot of money in this game. And we also learned that
first day eye companies struggle a lot to make profit out of this. So and this means whatever comes
up that will cost them might and in this duration that we see AI companies struggling or even
just burning money and go bankrupt. And so thus they start to lobby. So and they do not
have to be regulated. And since this is what they fear is costing a lot of money. And but that's
they fear their profits. So in this way then those jobs and so on and so forth. But also they
argue and they use the word digital sovereignty here. So and this is interesting since we for
example say digital sovereignty means for us also that yeah you need to look at your core
infrastructure. This is free software of core infrastructure. Also we have this public money
public code campaign where we ask that publicly financed software should be made available under
free software license. So with this I do believe this is something which is really digital
sovereignty right. So as you said you want to have control over your technology. But what they are
doing is not having control over technology. But rather coming up with unregulated AI. And this
is what they are asking for and claiming this to be digital sovereignty. And that's an interesting
move how they try to frame this word now in a way that is completely misleading and also has
nothing to do with digital sovereignty. So what is an unregulated AI coming from the European
Union. So how does this contribute to digital sovereignty. So and here we can see that they
yeah really using like every every bullet they have in order to to make their point. And also
it looks a bit like that they are a bit desperate. So to say it's also lacking arguments. So
the only argument they come up with is we will lose jobs. And I do believe if you look at these
companies they always say we are over regulated right and we want to have less regulation. But this
also means no protection for consumers. And here we need to say that we came up to say I act not
in the first place right not to regulate a market so to say but in the first place to protect
consumers. And I do believe it's a valid point when we talk about this AI and when we also when
we see what AI is capable to do to protect consumers to inform consumers right. I find this very
fascinating because okay I have two questions that came to my mind during this conversation now.
I will ask the first one first and then I will also ask the second one okay. So the first one
I find it's very fascinating this kind of argumentation especially those the argument of digital
sovereignty as I keep on hearing this more often and often no matter where I go like to different
conferences at different technological festivals. This is an argument that I hear a lot from
more of the right being spectrum of politics to be honest. And I find this very interesting
to see how they are how they argumentate that regulation is actually harming innovation.
And yeah I'm very interested in this conversation there and I very interested to see how this
will play out in a more political sphere as well. Any takes on that? Yeah I mean when also
laugh on the line back in the days introduce this term digital sovereignty I already feel that
this will be a huge fight around the term. So since nobody really knew or defined what it means
what is digital sovereignty right. So and what was happening is that most of the time topics were
discussed under this frame it was about chips it was about undersea cables it was also about software
but it was never clear what's the concrete scope of this and what to achieve right so and thus
it remained always a buzzword. I think the debate in the last or in the first term of also laugh
on the line also showcased that there's a need to be a bit more precise here and that's why
they also slightly change the term and introduce this kind of work on the first commissioner
working on so-called tech sovereignty. So the European Commission distanced itself one could say
from the term digital sovereignty and transferring it to tech sovereignty still this means it's
also not completely defined and this also means that everyone out there is trying to define it. We
try to define it if our right is trying to define it big tech is trying to define it and the
question is where do we end here so and it's definitely a fight which also yeah it's addressing
some various or so the result is some very strange arguments and some very strange attempts
to influence politics. We also see now a very strong movement the so-called Bayou
movement which is then in the far right often by national so for example in France they say
by French or in Germany by German so it's going in a completely wrong direction since if you look
at the digital world we have to acknowledge that this is a global thing right so there is nothing
like a national digital so everything is connected everywhere globally and for this I mean we all know
free software plays a crucial role here and it's absolutely makes no sense to for example go
to everyone to have a European software since this will lead to a sovereignty. First we have
seen with the case of Mistral that it could easily happen that you have a European company the
Monday and the next day it's a US company but also code is coming from all over the world right and
be do not build from scratch but we build on what's already out there and this is again a global thing
and I do feel that we are running this debate in a completely wrong direction since we
rather talk about borders then instead of like how do we and globally react yeah it takes to our
core infrastructure which have influences on the whole world and not just Europe or the
western world so to say right and this is something which we can see so that everyone is using
or one could also say miss using the term ditches of rarity or in other terms in order to make
their points for their business or to argue for their ideology right so since the European
Commission did not really define what they mean so and this is also something which we need to
address in this term and we already discussed this in latest podcast episodes when we were talking
about the taxoranity report as well as a procurement report where I do believe that if we manage it
to talk about strategic goals in taxoranity and procurement then we are also able to define
what we really mean with this and also are able to claim that this is a global thing and not a
national nor a European activity which is which is ending at borders so to say or that we do not
mean the free flow of unregulated AI with digital sovereignty but that we mean we want to have
controls over technology. True free software. Precisely. I just wanted to add just a little bit to
do so nicely dear. All right and now I'm wondering so we already discussed that there is an
exception for free software that is not high risk AI systems and we already discussed that there's
this letter but how a civil society is a whole reacting to this. So and just one or two days after
this letter of the companies have been released so maybe let's also start from scratch here so the
so there was discussions around stopping the clock. The European Commission spokesperson
said we won't stop the clock we are going to continue then the CEO came up with this open
letter we just discussed and another two days later the yeah basically European civil society
stand up and also wrote the open letter and said to the Commission stand where you are and
do not stop the clock it's important that the regulation is going to be implemented as for
seen and as planned. So and with the European Digital Society the mainly mean European Digital Rights
which is the umbrella organization of digital rights organizations from Europe where we are also
a member of this organization and others like consumer protections organizations so for example
Boyk was there and so which is basically the umbrella organization of all consumer protection
agencies in the member states or this would be for example in Germany and the from power
central so there are these official consumer protection bodies that have an umbrella organizations
there so even there so which is basically a very an organization also paid by governments
so they also fight here for consumer rights so a large group of 50 organizations
of civil society organizations coming from the digital but also from the consumer protection
area came together to counter this letter of the companies and and said look if we need
these rules since we want to protect consumers and so now I do believe that there will be a fight
over the summer break until August if the commission will stand at its position and will implement
as for seen or if the companies will be successful with their lobbying and that there will be a stop
the clock mechanism. Also since we have this deadline with August which is just a few weeks ahead
of us or I expect to be I expect to see more of these kinds of initiatives more pressure on the
commission and it will be very interesting to see if the commission will stand at its position and
we need to support them right so we need to go there and argue against so that's why it was a very
good thing from European Digital society as well as consumer protection bodies to to come up with
this letter and to counter this and to to take this fight and to protect consumers basically
so that we from August on will have these rules on general will purpose AI being into force.
You will probably follow this conversation for us right?
Absolutely and also most likely exactly and it's also most likely that we will come together
around August I guess where we might give a follow-up on this and yeah you dear listeners know
what happened in the end so if the rules on general purpose AI are implemented and or if they
postpone these and also how it's going to be continued with the high-risk AI and also as
said there are currently discussions on copyright in the European Parliament which will be discussed
on the 15th of July in the committee. Also here we will see how the debates are going to be
kicked off or ended so depending on how you look at it and then we will cover this yeah
most likely in August and see what happened until then if you should happen to run into decision
makers working on this let them know that we as civil society want those rules we want
that the AI act enters into force as for them and as planned there should be no further delay
so let them know that this is our position and maybe this helps.
Thank you so much Alex thank you so much for walking us through AI act and about the current
debates here in light of the time I would say we cut a close here any closing remarks from your side
on this AI act point. Not only AI act but I have a remark on our podcast so since we have a transcript
of the podcast which is generated automatically we were wondering if you are using this if you
read through this and how you like it and if you see any kind of improvements we could implement
that are easily to be implement so we don't want to spend 20 hours on a very perfect transcript so
this is not possible with our resources but if you could have a look at this and let us know if this
is something which is useful for you or how we can improve it with two or three clicks then we are
also happy to learn from you and yeah let us know if this is a useful thing with the transcript
if you use it and if you see any improvements for us. Thank you thank you very much for pointing
this out and we are happy to welcome your feedback. So Alex thank you so much for your time thank you
so much for being here it was a pleasure as always and yeah thank you. Looking forward to the next
episode. I also have something that I would like to highlight now before the summer pause starts. I
know we will be back in August but until our next software freedom podcast episode I would like
to point out a podcast to you called Linux InLaws. The Linux InLaws is a podcast hosted by
Chris and Martin and Martin and Chris they just have a wonderful and easy way to talk about free
software topics and yeah it's very easy to listen to and to dive into the ramps of the free
software world in a fun and light way. I'm very happy to point you to the season two episode 40
which was just recently released it's called flossing education and in this episode Martin
and Chris talk about free software in the educational sector which I found very enlightening and
very funny and to also point you to a slightly older episode from season one episode 82 where Matthias
Kirschner our president read the book Ada and Zangemann. Yeah if you have some time give them a
listen and come back to our podcast afterwards. Happy to see you around.
This was the software freedom podcast. If you liked this episode please recommend it to your friends
and rate it. Stay tuned for more inspiring conversations that explored the importance of
software freedom and its impact on our digital lives. This podcast is presented to you by the
Free Software Foundation Europe. We are a charity that works on promoting software freedom.
If you like our work please consider supporting us for the nation. You find more information
under fsfe.org/donate. Bye bye and thank you so much for listening.
Hi I'm Björn Schiessle. I came to the fsfe 13 years ago as a volunteer where I started translating
the web page and status of volunteers since then. I think fsfe is really important to have
an independent voice in Europe to talk about free software because it becomes more and more
important in a digital society.