China has used Artificial Intelligence to create what might be called a “Technological Panopticon.” Conceived by Bentham as a centrally planned prison capable of exerting centralized control over imprisoned people, the Panopticon is understood by Foucault as a metaphor for the mechanism of the apparatuses that administer power in society: states, armies, penitentiaries.
In the Internet, the Panoptic mechanism invades social space: contemporary technology produces an invisible and intangible virtual cage in which we are all trapped.
The Chinese Communist Party uses artificial intelligence to control the population through the Social Credit scoring system: 2.5 million people have already been sanctioned.
China is exporting the Artificial Intelligence Surveillance System (AISS), which also produced the sanctions just described, to more than sixty countries, providing not only the artificial intelligence system, but also the cameras, which are needed to dismantle the opposition, monitor extremism, and create the infrastructure necessary for civilian and political surveillance.
Also in the autocratic field, Vladimir Putin’s statement addressed to students at the opening of the 2017 school year is also of note: “The leader in artificial intelligence will rule the world.
On this point, the contrast between the autocratic approach of various totalitarian political systems and the democratic approach of the EU is evident, as reflected in this passage from the European AI Act: “AI systems that allow public or private actors to socially score individuals can lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups. They can also undermine the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the values of equality and justice. Such AI systems evaluate or rank individuals or groups of individuals on the basis of various data points regarding their social behavior in multiple contexts or personal or personality characteristics known, inferred, or predicted over specified periods of time. (…) AI systems involving such unacceptable scoring practices having prejudicial or unfavorable results should therefore be prohibited.”
Italiano