In this episode of The Law WithAI™, host Will Charlesworth delves into the intricate intersection of AI, ethics, and regulation with the multifaceted Dr Christian de Vartavan, CEO of Projectis Publishing.

The discussion spans the transformative impact of AI on productivity in publishing, challenges of copyright in a digital age, and blockchain’s potential to revolutionise intellectual property protection.

They explore the global regulatory landscape, balancing innovation with necessary safeguards, and the urgency of preparing for AI’s ethical and security implications.

Packed with insights on how technology reshapes society and commerce, this is a must-listen for those navigating the future of law and AI.

Key Themes:

1. The Ethical and Regulatory Challenges of AI - The conversation explores the need for a balanced approach to AI regulation, focusing on safeguarding areas like national security and children’s welfare while fostering innovation in industries like publishing and SMEs.
2. The Intersection of Technology and Intellectual Property - Dr de Vartavan highlights how technologies like AI and blockchain are transforming intellectual property protection, with innovative applications such as blockchain-based copyright enforcement for publishing and patent management.
3. Balancing Innovation and Human Creativity - The episode delves into how AI enhances productivity but emphasises the irreplaceable value of human creativity, particularly in publishing, and discusses the ethical implications of AI-generated content versus authentic, human-created works.

00:00 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

Hello and welcome to The Law WithAI podcast. I'm your host, Will Charlesworth. I'm an intellectual property and reputation management lawyer. I'm also a member of the UK Parliament's AI or parliamentary group on artificial intelligence.

This podcast is about breaking down and understanding how artificial intelligence is challenging the world of law, of policy and of ethics. Every couple of weeks, I will be looking at important topics such as how AI is impacting on established areas of legal practice, how it's challenging the law itself on issues such as privacy and intellectual property rights, and how it's raising ethical concerns and ultimately reshaping the regulatory landscape.

To help me in this task, I'll be having some candid and engaging conversations with some fascinating guests, including fellow lawyers, technology professionals and policy makers, to gain a real insight into what it means, not just for the legal profession, but for the commercial world and society as a whole. So whether you're a lawyer, a policy maker or you're just curious about how AI and the law mix, you're in the right place. So let's jump in and I will keep you informed and ahead of the game.

So today I have the pleasure of being joined by the always fascinating Dr Christian de Vartavan, and I will get the letters after your name as well, because they're very important. FLS, FRSA, CMLJ.

01:44

02:45 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

Well, thank you for having me. I'm very well, thank you, despite this well being quite busy. As you mentioned, I do a lot of things. Yeah, CEO of Projectis, also the manager of Projectis Publishing, which is growing now. I'm increasingly interested in publishing for various reasons. We will get into that, but today we're here for AI, eventually, blockchain the two are not so disconnected and, I'm looking forward to hear you know and you know to for your questions.

03:18 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

Really, thank you very much, and I'm really looking forward to asking those questions as well, because it's always fascinating when we get to discuss things. So it's clear you bring a wealth of experience and a unique perspective on the intersection of AI, ethics and global policy. So if we delve into some questions, that would be great. Some questions that'd be great. My first question to you would be and I think we'll come on to AI regulation very shortly, but just initially how has AI changed how you do business and how your life has changed over the last few years? How's AI impacted on that?

04:03 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

Very often people say this is an excellent question, and you know it's a bit rhetorical, but in this case it's actually real. Because take the publishing house we're using four AI at the same time to enhance the publishing at all sorts of levels from editing, from creation of book covers, from you know level, from editing, from creation of book covers, from, you know, interpretation of text. And it's incredible, and the same applies to so many you know so many businesses nowadays can use that. I mean, I was asked by the police, “How can we use AI?” And I said well, the first thing you can do is use AI just to rewrite text, speed up processes you know, reports and processes, reports and police reports. And because there is still a fear, I mean the police at the top level is still very anxious of how AI could sort of disturb facts. But yes, it's an immense power that needs to be harnessed. It's a question of knowing what you can do with it and when you cannot. And you know, maybe face recognition cameras in the north of London, you know, if we recall a certain incident were not a very good idea, although from a point of view of security it would help police, but from a point of view of human rights, and without parliamentary consent, you can't do this sort of thing All the way down to, yes, productivity, I would say Productivity. AI and productivity are definitely connected.

05:34

For the publishing house, the intention is to enhance productivity in any way. It doesn't mean that it needs to be used in every aspect. For example, a lot of people now say that you can publish a book in a day. Just a time for you to take a coffee, you can write a book. No, I'm sorry, a good book takes months, usually years in some cases. Writing a good book is something extremely complex. It needs to be original and it needs the human input and it needs reflections. So AI, yes, can be extremely useful, but we have to balance how we use it. And also because writing a book in a single day, yes, it could be. Many people do it and they put. They now sell them as eBooks and they turn them one after the other.

06:22

Will they be of interest to readers? This is a completely different matter and there are all sorts of aspects, even the author. I mean, if you're a writer, if you love to write, it's not just something you want to churn like in an artificial intelligence or an elaborate language model that actually speaks, that it's about you, it's your emotions, it's how you feel about something and in fact, I've just received a manuscript. I was reading on the way here and I'm not a novel reader, but the author managed to capture my attention because he raises some ethical, intellectual, theological questions which touch the areas in which I am more proficient. I would say we have a reading committee for novels, our delegate, but in this case, because that person was asking existentialist questions which are related to the human condition and therefore, as far as I know, an artificial intelligence in terms of human condition is a bit remote.

07:19

08:13

I think, yes, the productivity is definitely something for which AI can be extremely useful and I would recommend every small medium you know SME to use it. Large companies have understood already. They have the legal advisors to help them, so there's no need for that. But small and medium enterprises, yes, it's a must. You can't do without AI, and if you don't use AI well, you're going to lose productivity. It's not like you're going to lose originality, and we will like ideas. We have many, many ideas, but between one moment you have the, the sort of you you create this idea, and in all the way down to actually implementing it, there's a long journey.

08:58 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

And that's a really interesting point. You were talking about originality, and that touches upon, originality and creativity, particularly in the publishing world. has received a lot of news press recently and it's good. It's good to hear that publishing is still valuing original thought over necessarily just producing, you know, producing content. I mean, I know that Projecis Publishing has got some very interesting titles and some very carefully chosen works that it publishes because it strikes interest and it contributes materially to something.

09:40 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

This is the case. Blockchain Impact innovated in the field of publishing. It was the first book which was made a block of the blockchain to protect its IP. The Royal Society of Art was very quick to spot that the very morning we made the IP of not only books, but articles and legal documents. The publishing world is extremely slow to adopt these new technologies. As a matter of fact, I asked Perplexity to make a report on the impact of Projectis Publishing's transformation of a book into a blockchain and block, and also the law I suggested we create in this country to ask printers to actually write the number of printed copies in the imprint of a book so that royalties would be duly paid to authors, because a lot of publishers do not pay the royalties to their authors, which are due, you know, and that's playing through a sort of a type of contract which is net of profit, which means that basically, the publisher can pay anything it wants, like champagne, holidays and anything else, and by the time you spend all of that, there's nothing for the author and then a very complex royalty statement is sent which most people wouldn't understand. No, this is not the way it works. The author needs to be paid. So you remember that when I was part of the all-party parliamentary group on blockchain, I had a sort of little tantrum about the fact that one author had a bestseller book that was not actually rewarded, neither in the hardback edition nor the paperback version, with a single penny of royalty. So the YouTube video is online. You can see that and the reason that I sort of stamped violently my fist on the table and with a big smile though, because I was referring to Oscar Wilde at the time, who died, and today some people live off the royalties of his work, whereas he never. He died in poverty. We know that Van Gogh Van Gogh or Van Gogh died in poverty and there are still some authors who do not get what they are owed, and this is unacceptable. Well, I can tell you that Projectis Publishing, we follow the Society of Authors recommendation of 10% of royalty for the authors and it's duly paid and it's not net of profit, it's on book price and it's how it should be, because this is the honest way to do things. So, yes, so Perplexity asked Perplexity to make a report on what was the impact of what I suggested, and it said none. Not for now, I'm afraid that well it may come.

12:29

You know the evolution. For a start, laws are difficult to create, so I'm suggesting a law. It's for MPs and peers to reflect. But there was one peer in the room that day who actually got it, was extremely interested and said does it exist elsewhere? And then I showed well, that was one of the questions, in fact, and I said yes, in France it's existed for decades. You know, the number of copies printed needs to be in the imprint that goes to the British Library. Well, in France, the National Library of France, but you know, here it would be the British Library. And this way it's a way to protect the author, because if a publisher says it's a bestseller, well, a bestseller starts at, normally, several thousands of copies sold. So if the author didn't get any royalties whatsoever, there's something extremely wrong. Now this is where blockchain. What I suggested is that the imprints also put on the blockchain, so there wouldn't be any argument of the number of books printed.

13:27

But the publishing world has its own pace of evolution. For some publishing houses they might not be happy at all about what I'm saying right now, but frankly, I couldn't care less because I'm on the side of the authors. Being an author myself, I've written I can't remember how many books more than 10, and you know, 70 scientific articles, that sort of thing. And as a scholar, I've never been paid a single royalty, although, to be fair, at the time I was employed by state institutions. So you know, that was not my concern really. You know, I was not, you know.

14:05

But yeah, it's a big business Academic publishing which doesn't actually reward scholars with any royalty.

14:15

It turns billions of dollars of pounds of revenue every year and the scholarly community is increasingly unhappy about that. Well, again, if you're a state employee, a civil servant or like in France, for example, the National Research Center, whether you have your salary is one thing, but if you are in some countries, for example, where your university salary is not that important which was my case for many years when I was in Armenia it would have helped a little bit to have some royalties. So, yes, so go back to AI. Yes, productivity, innovation and impact that was the blockchain. Impact was the main themes with that, because we're yet to see blockchain to be understood and to be really used for what it is. But even though everybody understands that blockchain can protect IP in international way, very few companies and institutions use it actively, and there is certainly something to be done in the future. But you might argue that it's the dawn of AI and it's the dawn of blockchain, and let's see what's going to happen next.

15:24 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

I mean that's a really interesting point. I mean certainly from I understand exactly what you're saying about AI. I think that I've certainly seen in the last few years that if we go back, say, three or four years, it was all about blockchains and, to a certain extent, NFTs caught the headlines for obvious reasons and it was very much a big focus, and then AI started to come to the fore. Now, argue as to what is AI varies. It's a very blanket term applied to a lot of different software systems and a lot of different technical solutions. But certainly in the last couple of years, AI has come to the fore and then blockchain has been relegated, not because of its technical abilities, but just because of how the press cycle works. Basically, if anything can get great big headlines, then it's going to move, it's going to move up until the hype is over.

16:24

One of the reasons for for this podcast is actually to examine what the reality of AI is and what its real impact is, and how people are using it and adapting it into their, into their everyday lives, because I think there is probably a gap or a distance between what makes headlines and what is portrayed as being the future in terms of in three years. Do we need to be heading for bunkers or heading for the hills because humanity is over? Or is it just that technology will evolve and it will change in its own way? How do you view the current state of AI integration? Do you think on the ground it's different from what it's being portrayed as in the media? Do you think it's very different?

17:21 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

There are the real concerns and there we get into the question of regulation. As a matter of fact, I've always had the position that we don't need regulation right now for AI, except in matters of national security, education of children and other sensitive areas like this. So, in other words, it's a balanced approach. I'm not saying we don't need regulation at all and on that we need to regulate, and you know, with my position about the EU AI Act, we can get into that later. No, I think, like Lord Tim Clement Jones and you know myself and others, I think a balanced approach is what is needed. Where there are some areas of concern, if AI would take control of, you know, national security, infrastructures, dam or whatever. We can't let that happen. It's not possible. And because laws are difficult to pass, you know there are two houses, it's a ping-pong exchange, you know, between them until the law proceeds, and it's a lengthy process, process and and rightly so, a law shouldn't be created lightly. It's a difficult thing to create a law. It needs a lot of reflection, but therefore we need to prioritize and there are some areas yes, like national security and other things like that where laws need to be passed. Where, the world of enterprise is concerned and entrepreneurship. No, I think it's the reverse.

18:55

I think the conservative government and I'm not pro-conservative or anything, I'm neutral, politically neutral, even though a bit in favor of the Lib Dem perhaps, but that is a personal, because I'm a liberal at heart. But the thing is the conservatives were right. Viscount Cameron and his team were right to you know, approach AI from the point of view of standards. We sell. This country sells a lot of you know, standards every year I mean not this year, but the previous year, I think with 576 million pounds were made, just, you know, by you know, buying, rather selling British standards across the planet, which is excellent. Actually, it's good for this country, it's something that this country is good at, and I think we should proceed with AI, cautiously improve standards so that later we can really define areas where regulation is not only needed but valid, properly defined. And so this is a very important approach and it's the one that is followed, generally speaking, in this country, but it's not the approach which is followed over the world. Everywhere, Chinese have heavily regulated in their own way and introduced socialist and communist values as a requisite for the algorithm. That's their way of approaching it, their own culture, their own country, the United States.

20:19

Nothing is yet defined. They struggle, Congress and Senate and other majors, under the lobby of big companies, have not yet defined anything, although it has evolved recently, in the past few weeks. I mean there are and in Europe, unfortunately, the EU AI Act has been created. I would say botched, because I followed the creation process, this night spent with you know no working machine where we're, under a Spanish presidency that wanted to finish absolutely its mandate on the success, and on the other side, two MEPs who also wanted to put their names on a legal document that would affect the lives of 500 million citizens, trying to persuade, convince the only two AI companies in Europe, that's Mistral and the other German, I forget the name of which companies which didn't want such an act to be created. We had some theoretical moments where the MEPs threatened that this needed to be signed, then they left the room, then they came back, and so on, so on, and ultimately it was an overnight job where many chapters of the EUA Act were not even finished and that was passed as is.

21:41

And the reason why? It's because of the European, the wrong, in my opinion, European approach of the carrot and the stick. Comply will help you Do not in the stick. Comply will help you Do not. Well, the law, the new laws you know, related to EU AI Act, will say that you will have to pay a certain percentage of your annual you know profit, or I think it's turnover, turnover and that is wrong because it actually scares the hell out of small and medium enterprises to use AI. As a matter of fact, if I was the CEO of a European company, I would probably not go into the direction of using AI, that is, for clients and that sort of thing. I don't know how many 3,000 pages of regulations, and all of that before Europe had any serious AI at the time to show for.

22:36

I mean, now I understand that the French mistral were actually either working in the US or were bought by the US. I mean, they were a brilliant team of young coders and developers and whatever, but yeah, it was too early. You need to. In other words, they put the carriage before the oxen, you know, and that is, in my opinion, completely wrong. But the worst part is that it, despite what the MEPs in Europe, European Parliament, in the European community, says it, actually it will hinder the development of AI in Europe. It will, because people will be very concerned that they don't have the resources to use the legal advice necessary to fully understand the regulation, because this regulation is extensive. Now, this is what some lawyers in this country would like to happen. Well, from the point of view of a lawyer, it's perfectly understandable. Lawyers, the legal sector, loves when things aren't defined, because things are clear, there is a clarity and then there's a certainty of having yeah, it's certainty exactly and you can.

23:38

You can then charge your clients according to the fact that there is a lot of regulation, and second, because it's complex, that they need to be. If I was a lawyer, I would probably go that in that direction as well, because it's in the interest of my firm. But if you look at the interests of the country as a whole, the interests of the SMEs, we need to look at the broader picture. Well, this is counterproductive. If you're going to scare a small and medium enterprise, you know that A, it will have to have a budget for AI where legal, you know, side is concerned. And second, it will fear that it might be held responsible for some parts of an algorithm which they would have, on top of that, obtained possibly open source. It's very difficult to control everything and they would be held responsible for anything that might happen.

24:27

And look at the creative industry. The creative industry right now is mad. Many of them are mad against AI, and for good reason. I mean AI, a lot of you know. Companies use the work that some AI, some artists, have created, transform them and even give them life in some cases. We've seen that this week with some many paintings from masters, you know, being brought to life. But except, these paintings are in the public domain, whereas what artists are creating at the cost of their sweat and blood and tears and emotions and passion, is suddenly picked up by another company and used and that's your area Will, and used in an appropriate way, without rewarding the artist. This is wrong. But on the other hand, you look at what has been done with the paintings of great masters. It's extraordinary to see these paintings we knew all along come to life, literally where all the characters interact. We knew all along come to life, literally where all the characters interact.

25:37

So again, it's a question of finding the middle way to balance the interest of everybody, to play a fair game. You know, and have standards to regulate, because regulating all of this is impossible. I mean, I feel sorry for MPs and peers if they had to regulate all of that and they wouldn't have any holiday for quite a long time, to put it very mildly. And also, it seems to me that it's too early, because AI is new, even though it's exponentially developing and I would say not by the day, but not even by the hour, but I would say by the minute as we speak. It ramifies in so many directions, which I see in my field of publishing or in technology or archive management, because this is also what we do with our blockchain. Well, we need to give it time and we need to study, and all of this is going really, really fast, but the younger generation love that. You know that sort of I would say pace of development.

26:37 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

It's a very good point. I think they're used to having this pace of development because our attention spans have been shortened dramatically by social media.

26:45

And I wonder whether it's possible, whether, in taking a step back and seeing how it develops, whether we may miss an opportunity to to regulate or to add safeguards if it is, if it is developing, you know so so fast, it's interesting what you said about there. Has there's a a balance there in terms of do we regulate absolutely everything to do with AI or do we ring fence certain core critical aspects, and how do we determine what is critical or what would be critical to our national interest?

27:29 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

Well, our well-being I think that would be a start. Our physical security, our mental security. So I'm thinking physical security, of course, army, government, critical infrastructure, the water systems you know, electricity that's one but our children too. I mean, there is this horrible story of this man who has, you know, misled all these little girls to do things which they should not have done. And I was explaining to my daughter how he did it. I said you know. She said I think I know, and I said I don't. I don't want you to just think you know, I want to explain to you what he did. They asked some photograph. He pretended he was a little girl and then he asked for some photograph, and then he blackmailed the little girls to tell their parents, and the result is one of the most horrendous cases in human history.

28:25

Now imagine that AI would start to do the same thing Impersonate not only the voice, but the imagery, everything, that is, that my daughter would have another little girl on the other side of the camera and who would actually act in a way more convincing way, because we can see how AI can literally impersonate now anybody, anybody. So my recommendation to her it's I told her you do not, interact for the time being on media until you're you're a grown, you know you're 16, 17, and even then you do not send anything, you don't post anything, you're not allowed, because you you'll have problem distinguishing what is true and what is not, because we are now fools ourselves and we can get a phone call from our own mother asking us to do things which would be perfectly sensible, perfectly logical, except on the other side it could be a very elaborate language model. So these are the matters of security where we really need to at least keep an eye. But this is why, also, regulation, in this case the law of this country, is based on precedence, you know, and common sense, and that has the advantage over, I would say, a French system which is codified, like the Code Civil, which has been created by Napoleon himself, you know, a long, long time ago and evolved, of course, to be very rigid, but ultimately the judges, of course to be very rigid, but ultimately the judges use their common sense to when the law is not sufficient, particularly when the technology evolves at such a pace.

30:01

What do you do when nothing in the code that you have relates to the crime that has been committed and one of my cousins used to be a high judge and he was telling me that before AI, some human cases were so complicated that he needed to refer to his colleagues who had, like him, four decades of judging, to be able to sort it out. What about things which have been invented yesterday, which we had no idea even were possible, and come and then where other human beings actually are very creative at using it in a negative or, you know, malevolent way, and what you do with that? Then it becomes a question of intelligence, common sense and proper judgment, analysis, proper judgment. You can't regulate as fast as that. It's impossible. You need it.

30:56

This is why you can do some regulation on the cases you've had, or maybe some cases, but you need some distance. There's a need for distance between the moment the crime has been committed, the moment it's been judged, the moment you know this is actually I'm not a lawyer, but as a lawyer, you will. You know this is actually I'm not a lawyer, but as a lawyer, you will, you know, react on what I'm saying. Right now. It seems to me, in any case, you know the proper way to do things. Never rush anything. That's one rule for a staff.

31:22 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

It needs to be carefully, carefully considered around education and around informing people or allowing people to make informed choices about how they use the technology.

31:38

If it can't necessarily be, if we can't put that genie back in the bottle and there are certain aspects that will be very difficult to regulate or it will move too fast for regulation, then the focus naturally falls perhaps on education and informing people, and I understand, having children myself. We get newsletters coming out every week from the school addressing different points. This is TikTok, this is a latest social media craze, or this is what's up or this is, but it's from the view of trying to explain it to children of different ages, because children mature differently as well, but also for adults as well, because perhaps we've become used to trading a certain amount of our privacy and our data whether we consciously did it or not for access to free technology or access to technology that that you know benefits us in certain ways. and yeah, you raise such an interesting point as to whether we need do you think we need more, education around what AI is or what the impact of the technology could be.

32:57 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

I think you're absolutely right and I don't know what is being done in schools to make children aware of the dangers of not only the media but of AI, aware of the dangers of not only the media but of AI, or even the parents, for that matter.

33:15

Someone could impersonate the voice of the parents while doing. You know, I don't even want to think about what AI could do, but I think the Ministry of Education and, you know, teachers, have a, I would say, need to be very well informed of the development of AI when it relates to education, because there are some potentialities of serious harm to the children. Touch wood, I'm touching wood there. So far we haven't had a case, but we need to be prepared that something might happen one day. You need to anticipate. That's what the police does. The police is right now also going through difficult moments, I'm sorry to say, but it struggles to innovate enough. In my opinion, policemen are not happy, and I'm saying that so that maybe someone hears this and says well, to adapt and to innovate is the essence not only of the business world, but also the civil service, and you know it's a necessity. But also the civil service, and you know it's a necessity. Innovation is the big word that needs to be put on the wall and that everybody needs to see every morning when they go to their office. You're doing the same thing all the time is counterproductive, and particularly as the same thing that's been done for a long time now can be cut short. And it doesn't mean there'll be less jobs or whatever, because that's another concern, you know. No, no, it'll create new jobs. It will create new opportunities. It will allow us to do more interesting things, including reflecting on what AI can do, because there is another article in the New York Times, I think today, which says oh, we now have an AI that learns to create another AI. Well, we always knew this day would come, as we always knew that some AIs might go rogue and then we'll need other AIs. You know, we always knew that some AIs might go rogue and then we'll need other AIs. We'll have a school for little AIs and there will be a bunch of essentially most AIs will be good, and then you'll have the rogue one on which the others will need to clamp and tell him stop being naughty, because when you grow up, you're going to be a real nuisance for society. And that's exactly that. And I think we're going to get to the point where the question of personhood for machine has already been risen. The Swiss have created the law where a machine can be considered as a person. It's a question that arose in Parliament, and I think we're going to get to the point where we're going to have to consider that AI as a person is responsible for its actions.

35:53

And I don't know about punishment. It's a word that I don't like at all and it's not part of it. This is very European. I'm for the European idea. I came here to fight Brexit, but when I see what Brussels does Brussels is responsible for Brexit. That's the actual thing that needs to be said: the way it functions, the technocracy and so on and so on.

36:14

And punishment is not the way to go about things. This is something in which, in this country I'm sorry we do things much better, because it's about being responsible, educated, the things which are not done, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And you don't need every five minutes to put the phone on. You know that's the problem of having a company in Europe. Every five seconds, you're fined for this or that or whatever. I mean even here, company's house, if you're late, but it's not to the extent that we have on the other side of the channel and we don't want.

36:41

Take the identity card. We're going to go and talk about a lot of things. We might as well throw it in and the ID card. A lot of people want ID cards. Well, I'm sorry to say, but about 200 or 300 years ago, nobody was carrying around this piece of paper or a photograph on it and with a number. And so some people say, oh, yes, but we're protecting your interests. Yes, but we also we can protect our own interests. We don't want a state that is constantly above our shoulders looking at us and telling us what to do and what not to do. So, yes, they're against the balance.

37:18

A passport is useful, but when it becomes a burden, it hinders you to travel or you know, and so on and so on. Then there is real questions to be raised, and this type of question is being raised by the blockchain community right now. A lot of people want an international blockchain passport. They want a no-boundaries, you know ID decentralized, nobody can tamper with, so nobody can argue about. It needs to be under the control of government so that we do what John Lennon wanted to see a world without boundaries and frontiers, a utopia.

37:51

Well, the fact is, for thousands of years, there was no boundary. This started when we settled and started with agriculture, and then, from then on, things got really, really complicated For hundreds of thousands of years we roamed the world, admittedly with less technologies, with less medical care. And you know, I think it's in the life of Brian where the question is asked what did the Romans bring us? And then, well, they brought us this, they brought us that. Well, the world has to evolve and we understand, but not at the expense of our freedom, of our human rights.

38:28

And not you know, it's a crime in France, in fact, most Frenchmen don't know If you are not carrying your ID, you can be fined. I don't know, a hundred euros, I can't remember the amount. It's a crime. So the police can say oh, you haven't got your ID, we're fine. They almost never do because you know it's already a sensitive topic, but it's. That's not the sort of thing we want to see happen.

38:49

You know, I love to think that we can be in the world where we can be a bit freer in in the way we do things, so that what we take is you know, today we take for granted that if I want to move from London to Liverpool, I can do this as I wish. But if you lived in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, just to go from one city to another. You needed a passport. This is where the state it was called the Tuscany, and you needed a Tuscany. There is a document that allowed you to move from one city to the other, and this is unthinkable today.

39:23

But, yes, we think that boundaries and this is why the idea of Europe was great it was. You know that boundaries were off, we could travel, and you know I don't know about the unique currency. It brought a lot of problems. You know, the day the euro went into service, there was a 10% inflation or more, and it did put a lot of people in trouble. But, yes, the idea is good to have something which is common and the world needs to evolve in that direction, not in the direction where blockchain will be used to record our IDs, our data, and it will be immutable. You won't have the right to amend anything, and this is the wrong direction. The balance in where technology is concerned and what technology is concerned, having a balanced approach to its use, is a critical aspect really, particularly in view of the space at which it develops on a daily basis.

40:21 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

That's important, so there needs to be yeah, that's very interesting, so there needs to be a balance and perhaps a light touch to ensure innovation remains. Certainly in the UK anyway, innovation remains.

40:34 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

And a good sense of humor too. That is something which we prize very much in this country. You know we like to depreciate ourselves and you know a good sense of humor in all circumstances. This is what makes life really pleasant. Taking yourself too seriously, I won't refer to some of our cousins in Europe, some of them. If you don't refer to a person by citing his double PhD plus his professor title, then you're committing an offense.

41:05

So we I don't think in this country we want to see that, and it's about the idea that you know, we can be sort of free. I mean, the law by essence imposes on us some dimensions which, of course, if we were living in the jungle we might not have. But that's also the difference between civilization and non-civilization. On that basis, the Romans were able to actually kill a lot of people, so that to impose a law which is still the base of our law today A lot of people don't know that which actually prevented a lot of people to burn other people for human sacrifices and all sorts of atrocities all over Europe. Those barbaric practices shocked the Romans too, who were not kindergarten kids. But the law allowed to pacify, regulate a vast area, to create roads, and that's what we want also to see with AI. We want AI to help us.

42:12 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

Now, as to Mr Musk wanting us to buy a $20,000 to $30,000 robot I was going to come on to the robots, because naturally it's what everybody goes to now. Well, I mean, when you mention AI, instantly the images that come up on most media is of the Terminator and of it eliminating all civilization, and certainly there've been plenty of other movies around that. So yes, elon Musk, he wants to push innovation at an extremely rapid rate, which I suppose it's interesting and challenging at the same time.

42:54 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

Well, he's a genius in his own field and he's a little boy in other fields too. I mean, if he wants to leave the planet and conquer space, that's also part of human adventure, I agree. But personally, if I had the same resources that he has, I would actually try to preserve the resources that we have on this planet instead of using them to create more machines to go somewhere else. That is ecology, environment. We see in which state the planet. Look what's going on in Spain. I mean, it's tragic more than 200 dead because of those floods and you can debate why it happened that maybe it's climatic change or not, or whatever but the fact is we need to preserve the natural resources that we have. Spain lacks water. The irony is that Spain lacks water and then suddenly they're flooded. The Mancha, in the center of that we have. Spain lacks water. The irony is that Spain lacks water and then suddenly they're flooded. The Mancha, in the center of Spain, is expanding. The government, in most cases, hasn't got enough water to irrigate Spain. And there we are and we see that the whole country is flooded and 200 people died in a horrendous cyclone.

43:55

I've seen many videos and I couldn't believe mine. It's Valencia and the areas I know and I've seen many videos and I couldn't believe mine. It's Valencia and the areas I know, and you see those torrents, you know, going down Now. So Mr Musk has first he's an atheist. You have to say that he doesn't believe in God at all. He believes in technology, which is you know. He believes in machines, and now he says that everybody should. Well, he asked us. I've seen the video. He asked everyone. He said everyone should have one of those, this new robot, and this robot is $20,000 to $30,000. How many families can afford, you know, a robot and more than that? Personally, I do not want to see robots roaming around my house or the streets or whatever. I mean whether I want it or not. Some people might say it doesn't matter, you're going to see it in any case, maybe, maybe not. It's our choice to decide whether we want to put face recognition cameras in the street, whether we want AI to regulate our lives.

44:51

I think that was the New York Times article. Actually, a journalist left AI regulate her entire life, from top to bottom, for a whole week Shopping kids, choice of garments, whatever. Well, I haven't read the end of the article because I got here, but the thing is no, he has no, as I said, no faith, which for me is a question because I'm a Christian, and let's us remember that. You know, christian moral is at the base of the laws of this country. Still, you know, this is why you cannot have 12 wives, legally speaking, as a Christian. Therefore, he doesn't believe in God. He has in Christianity, of course, but he has extraordinary talents to use the means which he has managed to obtain through his intellect to create new adventures for humanity, which is commendable.

45:50

But again, balancing. What needs to be done in priority is, you know, the planet is polluted. Look at the rate some countries build. I mean, I like China and I've just become an advisor to the Chinese government to balance things between the West and the East, but I'm alarmed at the construction rate. You know, I like forests.

46:14

In fact, when I came here, I was looking at this new area of King's Cross area and I was thinking everything is paved, but once upon a time, the pub that is down the road used to be in the countryside, and now there's no trees, no plants, no, nothing. I was thinking we should pass a law that we actually put some flower beds under the bridge, just to remind us that the plants exist, because we're literally paving everything. And when you see, for example, the building power of China and God knows it's gigantic we could actually pave the whole planet. We could actually. If let some people, they'll actually put concrete slabs all over the planet. It's perfectly possible. Do we want this? And this is why parliament is important. This is why public debate is even more important, as a matter of fact, because parliament needs to react to what the public thinks and wants. I mean, it's our choice. If we want to pave the whole country with concrete stuff, we could decide that. Whether it will be a good thing, I'm not entirely sure, to put it mildly.

47:14 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

But ultimately the public needs to be fully informed of the issues so that they can lobby themselves, they can make their own informed decisions.

47:23 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

That's exactly that. Well, you're part of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI, so am I, and you know the debates that are taking place under the leadership of Lord Clement Jones, who is a rather intelligent person, to put it very mildly. It's a real pleasure to be there, and a lot of people can come and ask questions, and this is how things are supposed to be, not unilateral decisions taken by either a number of politicians at government or some gigantic companies like Mr Musk, who are becoming. He's behaving more and more like a state within the state. He challenges Brazil.

48:02

There's one characteristic of people with too much power and that includes Mr Boron-Jostin and others is that when the Supreme Court rules and it doesn't go into the direction they want, they criticize it. Same thing for the International Court of Justice in the Hague. When they decreed that Mr Netanyahu and his equivalent in the Palestinian side were criminals, even Mr Biden, I think, made a remark. And if we start to criticize judges, particularly at that level, when they've done their job, they're not there to you know, judges are not. I mean, some are politically orientated, many are, but it's not supposed to be like this. They're supposed to do a certain job, and if you criticize what high judges say, you know, and conclude, you put the whole system in danger. You open the door for you know, Mr Trump and others, to just contest everything all the time, and you need we need to respect justice and its rulings. Of course, after that, if you disagree, there are procedures, but there are ways to do things. And if you, you know, like when a major power criticizes the International Court of Justice, well, I'm not happy at all as a matter of fact.

49:11

So we've covered a lot of things in that discussion, but I think everything is interconnected. You can't separate things anymore. Everything you know, whether you're cooking or you're going to regulate infrastructures. Ai is everywhere. You know. Alexa is here. On the other side, we don't have an Alexa for our government, but some people would love that. I'm sure they would love to give our entire lives to some AI that would regulate us and tell us what is right and what is wrong, and what about our own? I would say freedom and I would say freedom and I would say, you know, freedom of decision. So, yeah, difficult topics, but very, very interesting ones. I would say.

49:49 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

Fascinating. Yeah, thank you very much. Absolutely fascinating. Set against that landscape. What's what's next? What's next for you? What's next for project is was either in the publishing or in consulting, or well, let's start.

50:02 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

You know, project is does two things it has technologies and it has a publishing house. The publishing house till now was a sort of cultural dimension of a consultancy company in technology, which evolved in the technology company. But the thing is, I'm finding it more and more interesting. I find that I can. We can publish books which are unpublishable, or tell things and talk about topics that are different, that are not necessarily what everybody wants to hear about, and I like that. I think you need to give a chance. In fact, we have. You know, Karen Tsai, my wife, has a project called Unseen Voices, has a project called Unseen Voices where she would like to create a number of articles for people who've never been published, who have different ideas, and she would like to create it. This is something I'd love to publish. For example, there are other books on history, egyptian history or other topics, and there are the books on technologies we talked about. Now, where the technology is concerned, you know that my company won an award for innovation a few weeks ago.

51:08 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

Congratulations. That's really good news. Thank you very much.

51:10 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

Yes, so it's been the world's best blockchain document management of the year, and that's because the SX4 blockchain I've created has the unique ability to work offline which is also of interest to the police and government and that sort of thing because I can guarantee 100% confidentiality on the documents that are put on the blockchain. So, basically, the blockchain by working offline, off the internet, everything is tied in blocks and hashes and everything, but then you press a button, it becomes, you know, visible on the internet. Now, to be fair, it seems to me that the benefits of this technology are not understood as yet, and that is not a question of whether my own project is technology is understood. I think it's just blockchain which is, as a whole, not always understood. Some companies are doing extremely well using blockchain, particularly in the financial sector. Silently, they use it. They reap millions, if not hundreds of millions. Thank you very much, but very often when I talk to people they say, well, blockchain, yes, but crypto, whatever I mean. There's a big confusion. So I have a project to use the blockchain technology where it hurts, and that would be in the patent sector. There is a possibility to use it there.

52:40

I'm not going to say more about that because it's an original idea. I wouldn't like people to jump on Particularly. I've had it for three or four years and it was something I had started to work. But I realized more and more that if the blockchain technology is going to be used, in many cases it's when there is a pain point, there is something that a problem that needs to be solved. So having an intelligent technology is not enough. What the intelligent technology needs to do is to solve a particular issue, and then it becomes real and useful. Okay, it's nothing new there. I mean, we know about that. This is the thing about technology. If the technology solves a problem, then you have many more chances. But I think in an idealistic way, I would have expected more companies to actually see the interest of having an offline blockchain much faster, and this is not the case. So I've changed course and will develop that new product very soon.

53:33

In between, there is a product called Archivia that has been developed, which is about for the management of archives, and it allows archives on any computer to be reorganized super fast and then thrown on the blockchain, on their own blockchain. This is all fine, but again, a lot of companies do not realize that, a their archives are an asset and two, with AI, these archives are going to come to life. An archive is not just papers and bills and whatever. It's a massive amount of data and data is king, and when you have data and you can manage it, so properly managing one's archive is a and properly analyzing the archive so, and the difference is that the difference between AI and blockchain is marking. Ai is super intelligent, but can mess things and do things on you know and literally does do things that you didn't ask it to do, which is you know. Being super intelligent can be extremely useful and the fact that it would do something that you didn't ask it to do, very dangerous.

54:31

Blockchain is exactly the reverse. It is silly in a way and disciplined. It's a block and a chain and a block and a chain and a block and a chain. It doesn't think. It's not there to think. It's there to record and make records immutable. Both have advantages.

54:45

It's a question of using each of these technologies for their appropriate use cases, and I see very well my own blockchain being used, for example, for the land registry or our very highly confidential police documents, and I've made the demonstration in the Ministry of Justice. It worked absolutely perfectly well, but it needs to be connected to what they do, and this is where there's a struggle. And so, because the police is struggling to innovate as fast as some of the senior police officers would like, and that's the question of structure. But, yes, who can actually pretend to have 100% security of their blockchain? From the moment when the document is uploaded to the net, the moment you press the button and you upload your document, even if it's encrypted, and so on, you still have a risk of interception by locking.

55:40

You know, being offline and off-grid, it's 100% security, unless you have someone in the vault and overlooking your child. You're looking over your shoulder and having a camera. I mean, yes, as someone, as a policeman said, yes, at that point it becomes ridiculous. At that point, it's not in the headquarter of the police that we would imagine this whole thing happened. I mean, everything is possible, but it's much more difficult, to put it very mildly. So, yes, to answer your question, Projectis will innovate again where its blockchain technology is concerned and also I'm trying to make the Projectis publishing a very modern publishing house, to put it very mildly, and one very respectful of the rights of its authors, because I'm not going to preach something in parliament and do exactly the opposite, in other words, pay myself some holidays at the expense of my authors, champagne included.

56:36 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

Fantastic, that's wonderful. Well, that's very good to hear, and it's good to hear that innovation, as you said at the outset, should be the word that everybody remembers each day. So thank you very much. That was an incredible whistle-stop tour around regulation, AI and ethics and impact. So thank you very much.

56:57 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

Pleasure Will. It was a pleasure to be here.

56:59 - Will Charlesworth (Host)

For coming in. Thank you, and I look forward to continuing the conversations at other times as well.

57:05 - Christian de Vartavan (Guest)

Thank you Great pleasure. Whenever.