AI Regulation Without Implementation Capacity is Bureaucratic Poetry

“A regulation without implementation capacity is not regulation. It’s bureaucratic poetry.”

Principles are necessary, yes. But without real mechanisms, everything remains good intentions. As an engineer, I know that good intentions don’t make gears turn. And as a manager, I know that organizations don’t change with nice speeches, but with technical decisions, real budgets, and prepared people. That’s why I have mixed feelings about INDECOPI’s guidelines on artificial intelligence. I applaud the attempt to require human responsibility. In theory, it’s correct. But if an AI makes decisions on its own and we can’t explain why it failed… who do you blame? If you can identify the responsible party, we’re not dealing with AI, but advanced automation. And if you can’t, then the regulation has no one to apply to. Because without real traceability, there’s no possible ethics. In mining, I lived this a thousand times: safety manuals impossible to comply with, regulations that no one could enforce, and “protocols” that only existed on paper. With AI, I see the same risk: regulations that sound good, but that no one can apply or enforce. Read the full article here to discover why artificial intelligence — like mining — isn’t regulated with nice speeches, but with criteria, knowledge, and truly assumed responsibility.