EuroDIG 2025: Humans, With and Through Technology

Good morning, everybody. A few years back, we organized a visit of the American historian, Professor Timothy Snyder. And one thing that he said at the beginning of his lecture really stayed with me. He said that today, that was a few years back, because of the internet, the entire world population was 20% more stupid than it was before. And the only reason why nobody notices that is that we are all collectively 20% more stupid than we were.

Now, I hesitate a little bit to start off with this quote from Timothy Snyder, because I felt that it may come across as too cynical, perhaps exaggerated, and definitely too technology negative. But then this morning, I read an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the professor from the New York University, who gave his students a set of AI-proofed assignments,

And the reaction was spectacular. First of all, most of them complained it was too hard work, even when he explained that these were regular standard assignments, only prepared in a way that prevented ChatGPT to read and answer them. Then they complained that the professor was interfering with their learning styles. I like this one particularly. And then one of them even demanded an extension because chat GPT was down on that day. So perhaps Professor Snyder was even too conservative. This, after all, was something he said pre-chat GPT, which I think, with the ever-growing influence of the artificial intelligence, is now making a growing number of people very non-artificially less bright. These students risk an atrophy of their cognitive faculties, due to an excessive use of ChatGPT. Degenerative AI, sort to speak.

This is not a rant against technology, because that would really be stupid. But I think we have to acknowledge that we have traveled a long way from those early days of our initial excitement about technology, and our conviction that it would transform our societies for the better, on its own, by default. We now understand we were wrong, not because we believed that technology was inherently good, but because we attributed ethical qualities to machines. Technology is neither good or bad. It is ethically neutral. What makes it good or bad is what humans do with it, and especially what humans do to other humans with it.

One of the biggest mistakes, I think, is to frame and understand the digital society in terms of interaction between technology and humans alone. It remains defined by interactions between humans, but with and through technology.

This may sound self-evident, but it is important to say it loud and say it often. Why? Because it reminds us that we, humans, retain agency to shape our interactions and shape our societies, even and especially in digital times. So I welcome the fact that this year's Eurodig sessions have underscored that digital governance is fundamentally about people, that it is about ensuring that innovation serves the public good, that ethical principles guide our decisions, and that the most vulnerable, especially children, are protected in the digital environment. This human-centered approach must remain at the heart of all governance efforts as we shape our future where rights, safety and dignity are preserved online. The question is how?

Well, let's start by how it will not work. I think we will not succeed by repeating ritualized platitudes about minimizing the risk and maximizing the benefits, regardless of the resolve and serenity and pathos we invest in our claims.

On minimizing those risks, I think we are becoming slightly better about identifying risks, even if much is still unknown. But we are not very successful in identifying effective responses to this risk, and we really have to step up this effort.

On maximizing benefits, it's more of a mixed picture. It is better because digital and AI systems are built in driving many processes that are making our lives better and safer. But much of that is not very visible to the public, which is increasingly skeptical and influenced by the negative, especially when it comes to human relations by impact of technology on disinformation, manipulations of elections, fraud, polarization. This is not good, because mistrust, fear and resentment of technology is not making our societies safer, they just facilitate manipulation.

So I welcome the fact that this Eurodig went beyond that. It went into the concrete and practical solutions on how to mitigate the risk of AI systems for human rights, on ways to resolve tensions and disagreements between tech giants and European regulators on the scope of freedom of expression, and on how to tackle the challenges to privacy created by neurotechnology development. To succeed, we need to work together.

We need to compare notes. We need to push each other and drive innovation. This is what Eurodig does, and this is why it is so important for the Council of Europe to be involved and to contribute.

I welcome the focus on human-centered approach. I'd like to recall what a young Polish artist, I think now living in Ireland, has said about AI. She said that I want the technology to do my dishes and laundry so I can do my art and my writing, not the technology to do my art and my writing so I can do the dishes and the laundry. Of course, the technology is and will even more replace many of our existing tasks, and that is in principle good. But the fundamental message of this young artist stands - that technology should make our lives better. And the same goes for innovation. While we all wholeheartedly support it, we should bear in mind that the ultimate objective is not merely to improve the technology, but to improve our lives.

We need to continue our conversations and cooperation to acquire and constantly update the right mix of policies and interventions. Regulations, where and when regulation is needed, but also investments in people through education, in digital skills and competencies. But not only, we must not forget that this is about human interactions. Not every threat can be attributed to technology alone, which is regularly an amplifier, very often an amplifier, but not always the cause of every pathology we are confronted with in today's world. From polarization to hate speech, a growing sense of social, economic, political and technological marginalization and neglect. As an example, it was not technology which made people believe that a used handkerchief was a bag of cocaine. The technology only made that stupidity travel faster and reach more people. So we need to find effective responses to these challenges which are tearing our democracies apart and give people skills and power to use the technology in an ethical manner and ensure that the technology is used in an ethical manner to them.

So we need to invest in education for democratic culture. We need to help citizens acquire competencies to uphold democratic values in a digital context. Now, after these three days, I think we will really be satisfied with the results of what was a good and productive session. But we should not engage in circular shoulder clapping and become complacent. This was an important step, yet only a step, in what is going to be a marathon, with a never quickening pace and no set distance. We'll just have to keep on running, and running ever faster. Because future will not adjust to our learning styles. We need to adjust our learning styles to the future. Or this future will interfere with our living styles, in ways we surely wish to avoid.