I agree on the fact that it's urgent to establish a base.
You know things work with legislation and other such matters better than I do. I don't know how long it would take to start over from scratch, but I think it would be a lengthy process. I feel that an effort should be made to come up with a version that provides a solid foundation that applies to most instances and, most importantly, is specific. That, in my view, is the way to go.
The danger arises when you start adding things. I read the amendments. I also felt bad when Mr. Généreux said that they had not been published, because I had read them on the train on my way here. I asked myself why I had been given access to the text of the amendments.
The list of high-impact artificial intelligence system categories was presented. On that, I'd like to say that there are so many applications that I was wondering why there is a separate category. It's important to be specific and more transparent, to comply with the regulations, and to factor in all the costs of implementing the infrastructure. If any thought is being given to the health, media or social media sectors, more precision is needed. If the field is too broad, it leaves room for interpretation.
If startup companies conducting research are attempting to develop products for the health field, they will need capital to put something very elaborate in place, and the costs will be high. Those are the kinds of factors that have to be kept in mind. It's important to be specific in what you're looking for.