Europe facing AI: preserving cultural independence*

At a time when the great powers are battling to impose their hegemony, it is necessary to reflect on a form of excellence that is neither economic, political nor military. Europe, denigrated by some for its colonial past and mocked by others for its political weakness, has so far retained a certain, though not ostentatious, cultural pre-eminence. This is due to the fact that it has shaped the planet since the 18th century by producing a large share of the legal, technical, regulatory and even aesthetic reference points. This eminent position manifests itself tangibly in the luxury industries, in architecture, in the furniture, fashion, tableware and gastronomy industries and crafts. It arouses both covetousness and, like any dominant model, a degree of jealousy and rejection.

It must not be denounced as the outdated expression of a bourgeois culture, but as the flourishing of a civilisation. The pursuit of beauty and the perfectionism that goes with it are the marks of a surpassing of purely economic interests in favour of satisfactions of a higher essence, in any case more beneficial to the human soul. The fact that the products resulting from it are appropriated by the principal holders of wealth establishes neither their disqualification nor their lack of representativeness. Especially since the wealthy long shared this privilege with other beneficiaries, and in particular with religious institutions in all their forms. The correlation between the faith of peoples and the making of exceptional works is moreover not unrelated to their sacralisation. Rather than criticising them as symbols of wealth, it is these exceptional works, whether material or immaterial, that should be made accessible to all, without discrimination.

The current world is subject to the tension between fascination with a material well-being that politicians of every stripe have made their mantra as well as their fodder, and this intimate conviction that happiness lies just as much—if not more—in the contemplation of nature and of exceptional works born of human production. In this respect, it is striking that all the world political leaders who may be thought to claim a model posture unanimously accumulate colossal personal wealth with the same casualness as football stars.

By contrast, European culture of Judeo-Christian inspiration might appear rather outdated. It defends a vision of the world imbued with morality and a suspicion toward dictatorships, an inheritance from the two world wars that precipitated its decline. In reality, it has simply retained a head start, and the only reproach that should be made of it is that it does not proclaim loudly enough its alternative vision to that of the new imperialisms. For its weakness is only apparent. It may certainly seem futile, even naïve, to wage a rearguard battle in the field of culture; a laughable stance in the eyes of the defenders of Realpolitik, who mock such ingenuousness. In truth, the issue is a priority.

AI, which tomorrow will govern our lives, feeds on the data selected by its programmers: content and algorithms. In other words, these calculators process a mass of data that has been previously selected and ranked, without any independent resource for arbitration. Children, students, researchers, as well as creators who are already delegating the writing of their own productions to this writing or formatting tool entirely conditioned by Google, Meta and other Microsofts, will be prisoners of these companies’ choices. Not to mention processes of a posteriori censorship, there is therefore a framework for content capable of conditioning both the content and its users. To take concrete examples, let us imagine that one of these companies excludes such-and-such artist or literary movement from its data, and this restriction will alter all of the calculators’ conclusions.

In the field of film creation, this means the Disneyfication of content and, consequently, of mentalities. In the literary field, it opens the door to all forms of censorship, of which Wokism has provided an example. In the musical field, it is the hammering of privileged musical formats; in the field of history, it is its rewriting in the service of political agendas. In the face of this danger, one possible response is the ideological or confessional formatting of different AI producers. At present, not only does such a choice not yet exist, but it is not even certain that it would be desirable. Even more than the media of the past, the press or television, it is a conditioning of individuals that threatens us through AI.

Far from an intelligence left to its own free will, AI becomes the sounding board, the formidable amplifier, of a selective culture on a planetary scale. It places individuals in a position of tutelage.

For this reason, it is essential that Europe preserve at all costs control over its artistic and cultural content, because this is an issue of education, freedom and independence. To ensure this, and without necessarily renouncing the challenge of possible aggressors on the terrain of armed force, is it not reasonable to hold the line on the positions that are ours: culture in its broadest sense, a spectrum covering music, literature, architecture, opera, cinema and theatre, but also fashion and all expressions of craftsmanship. In these territories, without claiming exclusivity, Europe holds advantageous positions illustrated by the universal fervour of a tourism of visitors attracted by its cultural values. Yet in fields where major arts emerged, particularly theatre, cinema or opera and its musical-comedy derivatives, the international media, which are mostly in other hands, tend to favour content formatted for commercial rather than artistic purposes, when not serving political aims. To reinforce their hegemony, the places of diffusion themselves are being invested. If care is not taken, Europe will soon have no alternative but between American or Chinese productions endorsed by the citations of artificial intelligence.

At the age of influencers, highlighting the weight of a culture that is both ancestral and contemporary, yet respectful of diversity, becomes a distinctive stance and a posture displaying an alternative to all present-day totalitarianisms. Its diffusion is a moral and political necessity. It can draw on a creativity sourced from the diversity of languages and regions. A pooling of communication media and of the logistical and technical formatting tools must be placed at its service within the European community.

Stéphane Millet

*Title created by AI.