Jean-Jacques Pluchart Management in post-colonial Africa has long been reduced to the management of SMEs or domestic cooperatives and the administration of subsidiaries of Western groups. Recent African literature [1] shows that the continent is going through a period of transition marked by the redeployment of sectors of activity such as agri-food, energy, construction, tourism, as well as health and telephony sectors. These transformations are being driven by a new African elite, itself stimulated by a youth that refuses to be condemned to emigration and wishes to adapt to the changes of the contemporary world. This elite is aware that Africa is the richest of all continents in terms of its raw material resources, its youth (more than a third of the population), its social structures (more than 2,000 ethnic groups) and its cultures. This elite, trained in European and American universities is striving to ease the tension between the legacy of post-colonial traditions and post-modern models based on innovation, individualism and freedoms. It notes that too many African states are still victims of political instability, institutional precariousness, social inequalities and lack of funding.It is confronted with struggles between governments that are rarely democratic, but above all, between local castes for the appropriation of income from the exploitation of natural resources. It is confronted by certain Western (increasingly less European), Asian (increasingly Chinese) and Russian multinational groups. African nation-states are traversed by convergent and divergent dynamics. They are striving to settle the legacy of colonisation, to consolidate their access to independence, to achieve their full sovereignty and to influence the balance of power between the continents of the west, the east and the global south. African youth want the emergence of an original managerial model, the advent of an “active African modernity”, conceived as an adaptation of Anglo-Saxon models, and as a “plural construction, combining science and conscience, but also reflecting the realities of the continent”. It perceives modernity as “a historical construction aimed at freeing the individual from certain social and cultural constraints “. This modernity is characterised by a loosening of traditional practices, a search for pragmatism and above all, an appropriation of the technologies of the digital economy – and in particular of AI and crypto-assets – as well as by the development of large environmentally friendly infrastructure projects. It seeks new types of alliances, cooperation and investment, based on more balanced exchanges. The priorities of the new African leaders and managers are to ensure more stable, inclusive and transparent governance, better regional integration and a stimulating dynamic for young people. The new management methods are oriented towards the creation of companies by African youth, aiming to better exploit local resources and to develop skills in the professions sought by international investors. Another priority of the cooperation is to train Africans in specialities that contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 1 (“No poverty”), SDG 2 (“Zero hunger”), SDG 5 (Gender equality), SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth), SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities and social inclusion) and SDG 13 (Combating climate change). The impetus for this dynamic is collaborative research and educational innovation, in which French-speaking teacher-researchers must take part. [1] Literature commented on each week on clubturgot.com.
The geoeconomic stakes and challenges of artificial intelligence
The geoeconomic stakes and challenges of artificial intelligence Nadia ANTONIN Power factors have changed in the contemporary period. Recent examples of power politics reveal that economic means have become essential in the exercise of power by states. This paradigm shift is summarised by the term “geo-economics”. Economic interests take precedence over political interests. While in classical geopolitical analysis, it was in the territory and military means that the State found the basis of its sovereignty, geoeconomics assumes that power and security are not only linked to the physical control of the territory. Today, the objective is to acquire or maintain a dominant economic position on the international scene, in particular by mastering innovation. This is the thesis defended by the economist and historian Edward Luttak. In the early 1990s, this economist analysed how the decline in the importance of military power led to a shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, “States and economic entities replacing the armed forces as the main actors (“From Geopolitics to Geo-economics. Logics of Conflict, Grammar of Commerce”, The National Interest, Summer 1990). Among the new instruments of economic and geopolitical power, artificial intelligence is today a major lever, an instrument of strategic competition and a factor in the reconfiguration of global industrial power relations in the same way as energy, finance or armaments. Analysis of the geoeconomics concept For Professor Antto Vihma, geoeconomics “consists […] in shaping and managing the strategic environment in which states operate for the pursuit of their national interests by economic means“ (2018). The concept of “geoeconomics” was developed in the United States by Edward Luttwak and in France by the political scientist Pascal Lorot, who created the journal Géoéconomie in 1997. It covers the study of the relationship between the economy and the political geography of a territory. A branch of geopolitics, geoeconomics is at the crossroads of economics and international relations. Luttwak (1990) highlighted geoeconomics as “a modern form of rivalry between international powers for which the role of the State and its financial capacities constitute the foundations of diplomacy and the “economic” deployment of nations“. As for Lorot (1999), he sees in geoeconomics “an instrument for analysing the economic and commercial strategies determined by the policies and diplomacy of national governments seeking the reciprocal international influence of these national enterprises and the State“. Block strategy for a dominant position A global struggle for artificial intelligence has entered the international arena. In other words, as artificial intelligence has become a major geoeconomic issue, the major powers of the United States, China and the European Union (EU) are engaged in a technological and economic race to carve out the lion’s share. Each is seeking to master the technologies, infrastructures and standards that will shape the economy of the 21st century. AI is redefining the global hierarchy: the United States dominates through innovation, China through state strategy, and the European Union through standards. – At present, only the USA holds a monopoly on AI and has managed to rise to the rank of leader in the AI race, despite China’s rise in this field. China is the main rival of the United States. The US’s supremacy in AI innovation is based on three pillars: 1) academic excellence: 2) Silicon Valley, which remains the heart of the technology and innovation industry; 3) significant public and private funding. – China is accelerating the integration of AI in all sectors. In addition, a major revision of the Chinese cybersecurity law (October 2025) reflects the state’s desire to technically and ethically regulate the meteoric growth of artificial intelligence in various applications. By updating its legislative framework, China is seeking not only to assert itself on the world stage as a leader in cybersecurity, but also to better manage the risks associated with AI and infrastructure. - The European Union has chosen the standard as a strategic and competitive weapon in order to impose its vision and conquer new markets. Wanting to become a pioneer in “a field that fascinates as much as it worries“, the European Union has taken the lead over the USA or China, to regulate AI. Thus, on 14 June 2023, the European Parliament largely approved the draft regulation on artificial intelligence, the Artificial Intelligence Act, which entered into force in 2025. The geoeconomic challenges of artificial intelligence The deployment of AI raises geoeconomic issues, particularly in terms of resources, ethics, employment and regulation. - Artificial intelligence depends on three essential resources: data (“new black gold”), semiconductors and computing power. The battle for these resources is at the heart of current geoeconomic tensions. - In addition, given the biased algorithms, the discrimination that AI can generate, security issues and data protection, etc., the adoption of this technology raises ethical questions. The AI economy must be based on trust. - The rise of artificial intelligence is profoundly transforming global geoeconomic balances, in particular through its effects on employment. Three major issues can be identified: 1) first, global competition for talent is intensifying; 2) second, AI is causing a recomposition of global value chains; 3) finally, AI is destroying intermediate jobs, while promoting the creation of highly skilled jobs, requiring a set of advanced technical and cognitive skills. - With regard to regulation and digital sovereignty, countries are seeking to regulate AI to protect their economic interests and values. In conclusion, the countries that succeed in innovating quickly, while ethically and legally regulating the uses of AI and preserving their technological sovereignty, will be the big winners of the AI revolution.
Corporate culture, the best defence against storms
Business leaders have always learned to juggle the unpredictable. In a world today marked by successive crises — health, geopolitical, climate, economic — resilience is an essential quality. Whatever the size of the company, there are leveraging effects that will promote this resilience. There is one that remains largely underestimated: corporate culture. Sometimes reduced to a few symbols or values, corporate culture is too often confined to a human resources component. However, it is a strong dimension of the company, a set of values and behaviours capable of driving innovation and growth. When everything is faltering, it is not the tools or processes that will save the company. These are often invisible elements, which do not appear on the company’s balance sheet or in the profit and loss accounts. Corporate culture exists from the moment the entrepreneur starts his or her entrepreneurial adventure surrounded by his or her first employees. Indeed, in a company where the culture is strong, clear and embodied, employees know how to behave, what matters, and what is expected of them, even when the benchmarks change. This makes it possible to react quickly, to reorganise without chaos, and to remain faithful to the company’s identity without succumbing to organisational panic. Conversely, a company without a shared culture quickly becomes a field of tension: power games, inertia, strategic misalignment. In a storm, the absence of culture is paid for in cash. So, is corporate culture a brake on innovation or growth? This is a common mistake, but one that has never been proven! Corporate culture creates a secure framework that enables strategies to be implemented. So many business leaders wonder about the causes of the failure of their strategies: the answer probably lies in the presence or absence of a corporate culture! Corporate culture is also the remedy to prevent the company from going through difficult times. In other words, there can be no innovation without a strong culture. Companies that innovate sustainably are often those where the culture values curiosity, questioning, cooperation and responsibility. Not those where innovation is confined to an isolated unit or driven by sterile indicators. We can ask ourselves about the causes of the sharp rise in business failures in our country. The lack of corporate culture could be one of the causes of failure, because when the culture no longer supports the strategy, the company becomes misaligned and takes the risk of becoming stagnant. But a ship that does not move forward moves backwards! What if corporate culture was simply the conscience of the legal entity? This consciousness capable of perceiving and interpreting events. But this is without counting on the cognitive biases that are increasingly being put forward to warn us about what we think we see when the reality is quite different. Corporate culture is no exception. It is up to the entrepreneur to preserve and maintain this cognitive capital: it is vital for their business! The world of tomorrow will remain uncertain… that’s for sure! Crises will continue, in other forms. Innovation will remain vital, but difficult to maintain without benchmarks. In this context, corporate culture becomes a factor of strategic robustness. It does not protect against storms: it gives the posture to cross them, and sometimes even to emerge strengthened. François NAUX is Managing Director of WICS Consulting, independent director, member of APIA and member of the Turgot Club. Column published in the newspaper Les Echos, 1 December 2025;
Survey of French managers who have become lecturer-researchers in management sciences
Jean-Jacques Pluchart In January 2026, the FNEGE (National Foundation for Business Management Education) published a study on Practitioners Becoming Researchers (PDC), aimed at “understanding their backgrounds and motivations, supporting future candidates in this transition, and highlighting the specific strengths of these profiles for teaching and research in management sciences “.The study uses a methodology based on a survey carried out between January and March 2025, which collected 207 responses, including 124 teacher-researchers who stated that they had been working for between five and twenty years. The survey reveals that a quarter of respondents work in public institutions, half in private schools and the last quarter abroad. The study distinguishes three profiles of PDCs: “meaning-oriented” (of existence), “intellectual challenge” (faced with the theoretical corpus), and “balanced” (between professional and private lives). The PDCs underline the scale of the challenges to be met by the PDCs: research training, assimilation of scientific literature, drop in financial income, limitation of career prospects, acculturation to the academic environment (often distant), confrontation with a certain psychological distress (due to uprooting), etc. However, they recognize that they have assets favorable to their transition: field experience, mobilization of professional networks for research, better understanding of managerial issues and challenges, less rigid hierarchy, legitimacy with students, etc. They particularly appreciate being able to carry out parallel associative, elective, sports or consulting activities. They acknowledge having underestimated the effort of retraining and the difficulty of accessing the status of university professor. Overall, they do not regret their choice of radical retraining. The authors of the study recommend that PDCs “adopt a learning posture, accept the status of novice, develop a critical distance from their previous practice, set up companionship systems promoting the transmission of codes, methods and postures of research, create places of collective reflexivity (seminars, peer groups) mobilizing the diversity of courses, organize webinars informing practitioners about the reality of the profession of EDC, and promote projects enhancing the professional expertise of PDCs”. The study shows that the multiplication of PDCs contributes to a better synergy between theorists and practitioners, between the university and the company, between fundamental research and applied research. Reference: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/wn_57sf8hq_rdol5jh987mkxq
AMERICAN STABLECOIN VERSUS DIGITAL EURO
Jean-Jacques Pluchart The digitization of currencies is currently marked by a rivalry between two models, that of stablecoins backed by the US dollar and that of the digital euro representing the Central Bank Digital Currency of the eurozone. This rivalry reflects the opposition between two fundamental systems of the economy, one being mainly regulated in the short term by the market and the other being governed in the long term by the State. It therefore reflects a new “tragedy of horizons”, according to Mark Carney’s famous formula delivered in 2015. The digital euro system, approved by the European Council on 19 February 2025, should be in place by 2028-2029, following an institutional timetable defined by the European Central Bank, while the stablecoin system based on the dollar is already in full development. Monetary stablecoins strive to combine the flexibility of bitcoins and the stability of fiat currencies issued by central banks. They are in principle guaranteed by solid assets such as US Treasury bills and Fed reserves, and their transactions are secured by the blockchain. Their assets are liquid and are not remunerated so as not to compete with banking products. In principle, they only perform the functions of payment (in particular cross-border) and “bridge currency” between currencies. In countries with unstable economies, they can act as an informal store of value. However, they do not fully comply with certain criteria required of systemic currencies. Unity between issuers is not guaranteed in the event of a crisis, and competition and therefore a hierarchy can then be established between them. The elasticity of stablecoins may be affected in the event of a monetary shock, as the system is not guaranteed by a central bank. In the absence of a lender of last resort, cryptocurrencies are suspected of being procyclical. Due to the decentralization of their issuers and the differences between their national regulations, the integrity of the stablecoin system and the protection of their users may be threatened. The market for monetary stablecoins also has an almost monopolistic structure, being largely dominated by the issuers Theter and Circle. Their consolidated outstanding amount is estimated at $350 billion as of 31 December 2025. But due to the uncertainties weighing on their future, the capitalization of stablecoins backed by the US currency is estimated at between $500 and… $3,700 billion by 2030. Other types of stablecoins that can be backed by baskets of cryptocurrencies, indexed to metal indices (such as gold) or commodities, are generally unsecured and are marked by even more erratic fluctuations. According to some economists, especially Anglo-Saxon ones, an inactive and unpaid MNBC cannot replace the large-scale adoption of stablecoins distributed by platforms. They consider that the risk of a threat by stablecoins to monetary sovereignty can only arise in payment networks, because the value of a national or federal currency is stabilised by the balance sheet of the Central Bank, and the convertibility between deposits is guaranteed by banking regulations. According to most monetary economists, the use of dollar-backed stablecoins is still limited (at 11% of global monetary assets at the end of 2025), because they are directly competed with by bank savings products, and above all, because they can indirectly suffer from the erosion of confidence in major currencies such as the US dollar. Monetary stablecoins therefore risk suffering the fate of certain private currencies that have now disappeared, which have marked world monetary history.
A new consumer credit reform to combat over-indebtedness
Nadia Antonin The Banque de France is sounding the alarm: according to the latest monthly barometer of financial inclusion published on 11 December 2025, the number of over-indebtedness files filed with the Banque de France increased by 8.9% over the first eleven months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. This increase intensified in November 2025, with an increase of 12.8% compared to November 2024. In addition, according to the Banque de France’s 2024 typological survey published in February 2025, nearly one in two debt files (43%) includes at least one consumer loan. The rise of consumer credit In view of technological developments and changes in consumer habits, consumer credit has experienced strong development in recent years. It is an essential lever for French households. It allows them to finance personal projects such as a car, a trip, household appliances, or to overcome cash flow difficulties. In addition, it represents a strategic activity for banking and financial organisations. Consumer credit is credit granted to individuals for the purchase of a manufactured object, as opposed to production credit granted to the manufacturer. It concerns transactions other than those related to real estate. Its amount is between €200 and €75,000 and its repayment period is greater than three months.It is governed by the Consumer Code, which lays down a set of rules relating to the content and conclusion of the contract. There are several forms of consumer credit: – the personal loan which makes it possible to finance a project without having to justify the use of the funds; – the assigned credit linked to the purchase of a specific good or service; – revolving credit consisting of a credit line, accessible at any time and which is renewed over the course of repayments; – the lease with purchase option which makes it possible to rent a property (for non-professional use) with the option of buying it at the end of the contract at a price fixed from the start; – personal microcredit, which concerns people who do not have access to traditional bank loans, due to low income or a situation of financial precariousness. Consumer credit and over-indebtedness Appearing to be attractive, consumer credit can quickly become a financial trap if you do not understand how it works. It is considered to favour over-indebtedness, that is to say a situation in which a person (or a household) is no longer able to honour their debts (monthly loan payments, bank overdrafts, rents, etc.). Over-indebtedness developed in the late 1980s following the lifting of credit controls in a context of strong growth in consumer credit. Despite the passing of the Neiertz law in December 1989 to combat over-indebtedness, the number of filings has continued to grow. Faced with the growing flow of cases, the government adopted the Lagarde law on 1 July 2010, which imposes strict regulations on consumer credit for amounts between €200 and €75,000 and with a minimum duration of 3 months. To circumvent the Lagarde Law, two new types of loans, not subject to the provisions of the Consumer Code, have appeared: the “split payment”, which consists of paying for a purchase in 3 or 4 instalments, and the “mini-credit”, which is a loan of a few hundred euros. These rapid payment facilities, often perceived as harmless, have led more and more French people into over-indebtedness. In 2024, 17% of over-indebtedness files contained a mini-credit or a split payment, compared to only 1% in 2022 and 7% in 2023 (Source: Observatory of Banking Inclusion). This sharp increase in over-indebtedness prompted the French government to transpose, by order of 3 September 2025, the European Directive (EU) 2023/2025 of 18 October 2023 on consumer credit agreements. Tightening of conditions for access to consumer credit This new reform, which is due to come into force on 20 November 2026, aims to more strictly regulate access to credit and strengthen the protection of borrowers. The new provisions are as follows: – an extension of the scope of consumer credit regulations: until now, only transactions between €200 and €75,000 were regulated. The new rules will apply from the first euro up to €100,000, and will include split payment, mini-credit, bank overdraft and lease with option to purchase within the scope; – a careful study of the borrower’s solvency and a consultation of the Banque de France’s Personal Loan Repayment Incidents File (FICP) before any signing of the contract; – highly regulated advertising. This must be “clear, fair and not misleading”; – a strengthening of information obligations before signing the contract. The standardised preliminary form for the issuance of the offer (FIPEN) given to the borrower will have to describe precisely the characteristics of the contract; – support for the borrower experiencing financial difficulties. The lender will have to support them by offering solutions around renegotiation, rescheduling, spreading, extending the duration of the loan, etc., and directing them towards advisory services; – a new sanctioning power: control and sanctions will now be entrusted to the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF). This new reform of consumer credit to combat over-indebtedness has thoroughly modernised the provisions applicable in France in order to protect borrowers and harmonise the rules at European level. It introduces a requirement for transparency, ethics and accountability.
THE RETURN OF THE DRAGHI REPORT
Jean-Jacques Pluchart The end of 2025 was marked by a reminder of the concrete proposals formulated in the report led by Mario Draghi and published on 9 September 2024. This reminder is explained in particular by the implementation by the United States of an increasingly isolationist policy, which forces the European Union to finally define an industrial strategy that is both more proactive and more concerted. The debates raised on this issue in the European and national parliaments have shown – beyond certain ideological oppositions – the relevance of the recommendations made in the “Draghi report”, in order to redress the economy of the European Union and reassure its population about its future. The report notes the growing backwardness of the Old Continent’s technology and economy since the turn of the century. The delay is considered increasingly irrefutable and irrecoverable, especially in the high-tech sectors, and especially in the field of Artificial Intelligence. According to the report, the investment required to make up for this shortfall would be around 800 billion euros per year over several years, or 4.5% of the GDP of the 27 Member States, in the form of both public and private expenditure. This amount corresponds to that of the Rearm Europe plan intended to strengthen European defence. The technological backwardness is attributable to insufficient growth, driven by a downward trend in the productivity of human and material factors. This drop-out is said to be caused by both scientific and industrial factors, such as insufficient protection of emerging industries, inadequate regulation of high-tech markets (too focused on competition), a lack of investment in the most productive sectors, a delay in the decarbonisation of factories, and above all, an impoverishment of technical skills due to the failures of R&D (in particular public) and the education system in engineering sciences. But the delay would also be due to economic and financial shortcomings, which would imply a revival of the construction of the European capital market, the establishment of a single regulation, the commitment of a European public debt dedicated to productive investments, the development of venture capital, pension funds, securitization of receivables and non-bank financing (shadow banking). Another priority, according to the report, lies in the diversification and security of the European Union’s supplies of critical resources (rare metals, electronic chips, software, active ingredients, etc.), as well as in the strengthening of industrial value chains. However, the report recognizes that Europe has certain advantages in terms of electric mobility, micro-nuclear power, hydrogen exploitation, aeronautical construction, etc. Finally, it underlines the interest of reviving a certain economic patriotism [1] on a European scale, which presupposes the adoption of a form of protectionism through the strengthening of regulatory barriers and ecological standards penalizing certain imported products. The reference to the Draghi report in public debates highlights the opposition between political circles, which are divided on the policies to be implemented to bridge the European gap, and economists, who are generally in favour of a return to a more dirigiste and protectionist form of the market economy. It also pits defenders of the public service against supporters of the private economy, as well as players in the high-tech sectors against those in other sectors of activity. But this reference reveals above all oppositions between the 27 Member States of the Union, some of which consider themselves victims of a ‘prisoner’s dilemma ‘. 1 L’avenir de la compétitivité européenne. Une startégie de compétitivité pour l’Europe, Mario Draghi (dir.) , 2024 2. Cf. Does economic patriotism make sense today ?, C. de Boissieu, D Chesneau (col.), Maxima, 2020
AI at the service of the industry of the future
Jean-Jacques Pluchart The digital transformation of the industry involves mobilizing innovative artificial intelligence techniques. These techniques use the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing, data exchange, prescriptive analysis, new business models, etc. They apply advanced methods to manage data flows from heterogeneous systems. They aimto achieve greater energy efficiency, more efficient maintenance, protection against breakdowns or intrusions, etc. In principle, they enable better safety, productivity, quality and profitability of industrial systems. They operate on three levels: that of capturing operational data from suppliers and customers; that of connecting stakeholders; that of transforming data into decision-making aids and valuable actions. AI offers continuous analysis capabilities dedicated to the collection of sensory data, fault diagnosis, flow modelling and the prescription of valid solutions. Current research focuses in particular on the integration of critical maintenance, safety and cybersecurity processes. They strive to improve the performance of systems without compromising their security. Systems engineers must choose the most suitable learning, optimization or prediction methods for the machines’ fields of application. This is particularly the case in the electrical energy sector. The digital management of the processes of generation, transport, distribution and consumption of energy resources helps to reduce the mechanical inertia of the electricity network and to better ensure the balance of power between production and consumption. AI makes it possible to capture, store and process an increasingly large mass of data in order to make “the network smarter”. In the nuclear industry, AI makes it possible to improve predictive maintenance (by means of vibration sensors, real-time alerts), anti-collision detection and monitoring of sensitive sites. Among the digital techniques implemented in all industrial sectors, that of digital twins is emerging as a major lever for operational optimization. The digital twin is an interconnected system, powered by data from IoT systems, supervision platforms and simulation software. By building a virtual model of real objects, this technique offers companies increased visibility into their processes, better predictive maintenance and faster development of new products, without impacting production. However, it creates cybersecurity problems, as it reveals the “trade secrets” and “industrial comparative advantages” of innovative companies. It exposes them to espionage, sabotage, manipulation of optimization parameters and/or destruction of critical data. The complexity of digital twins makes them difficult to secure, as they combine heterogeneous software from a variety of vendors, integrating different IoT sensors, AI layers, physical simulators, edge tools and, above all, cloud computing. In the current context of software between advanced industrial states, these actions constitute major threats to their strategic resources. Thus, the digitization of industrial processes raises questions of national sovereignty that invite public and private decision-makers to extend the European directives on IT security, and in particular, and to adapt the personal data protection regulation (GDPR) to the industrial environment 4.0. In 2016, the Turgot club chronicled one of the first works devoted to the birth of “Industry 4.0 “. Kohler D., Weisz J-D. (2016), Ambition industrie 4.0. The challenges of the digital transformation of the German industrial model, Eds Eyrolles. Since the 1990s, German industry has been engaged in a “cobotics” or collaborative robotics approach combining robotics, mechanics, electronics and cognitive sciences to assist the operator of a machine. Since the 2000s, it has also initiated a process of “globotics” or globalization of resources thanks to AI. The latter makes it possible to shorten value creation chains and decision-making circuits within organizations and their ecosystems, but it also accelerates the phenomenon of job relocation in laboratories, offshore factories or call centres. It also promotes the emergence of new forms of open organizational innovation based on free software, co-working and distance working, in principle more agile and less expensive, which extend from research and development (living labs, fablabs, etc.) to cooperative production (digital micro-manufacturing, do-it-yourself, maker spaces, etc.), and collaborative consumption (peer-to-peer accommodation, car sharing, etc.).
From symbolic AI to connectionist AI
From symbolic AI to connectionist AI Jean – Jacques Pluchart The history of AI is marked by a tension between two approaches, alternately symbolic and connectionist, as observed by Cardon, Cointet and Mazières (2018). The researchers, following Lecun (2015), relaunched AI by processing massive data using so-called “deep neural” models (deep learning) and following a logic borrowed from cybernetics. This approach, described as “generative”, “inductive” or “connectionist”, has long been marginalised after the launch of symbolic AI in 1956 at Dartmouth by John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky, followed by the development of expert systems before the emergence of machine learning in the 1980s. Symbolic models were developed by a limited number of heavy league researchers, composed of a group of MIT (Minsky, Papert), Carnegie Mellon (Simon, Newell) and Stanford University (McCarthy), which mainly responded to public tenders and engaged in more or less playful experiments: chess or go games, dynamic simplified spaces, simulation of sets, semantic networks, truth functions, robotisation of behaviours, creation of new languages, etc. While symbolic AI applies a model to data following a hypothetical-deductive reasoning, connectionist AI follows an inductive logic by applying a learning method that makes it possible to make predictions by iteration of massive data. While symbolic AI applies a model (a theory or a heuristic) to structured data in order to verify a result at a given horizon, connectionist AI produces original content by “learning data” through appropriate questioning. While symbolic AI attempts to solve a predefined problem, connectionist AI induces meaningful representations from the interactions between social actors. This approach follows the logic of cybernetics initiated in 1948 by Norbert Wiener. The renaissance of connectionist AI is attributed in particular to the Parallel Distributed Processing research group led by Rumelhart et al. (1986). The work of the PDP explores the deep mechanisms of knowledge by exploiting the metaphor of neurons (a network of connections) and assuming that it is constructed by a binary activation mechanism. For more than 60 years, this controversy between researchers on AI has given rise to countless scientific works since, according to Cardon, Cointet and Mazières (2018), the “symbolic” corpus totalled 65,522 publications between 1956 and 2018, while the “connectionist” corpus gathered 106,278 publications. This vast debate is part of a process of scientific construction and deconstruction theorised in particular by Latour (1988). Références CARDON D, COINTET J-P. et Mazières A. (2018), « La revanche des neurones. L’invention des machines inductives et la controverse de l’intelligence artificielle », Réseaux 2018/5 (n° 211). LATOUR B. (1988) , Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society , Harvard University Press. LECUN Y., BENGIO Y., HINTON G. (2015), « Deep learning », Nature, vol. 521, n° 7553. RUMELHART D. E., McCLELLAND J. L. (1986), « PDP Models and General Issues in Cognitive Science », in PDP RESEARCH GROUP (1986), Parallel Distributed Processing. Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Cambridge MA, MIT Press. WIENER N. (2014), La cybernétique : Information et régulation dans le vivant et la machine, Seuil
AI and intellectual property law
The law firm Debouzy organised a series of conferences on the challenges of generative AI, aimed at corporate lawyers and managers. On 18 November 2025, the Turgot club was invited to the conference led by lawyers Desrousseaux and Pérot, specialists in patent and copyright law. The two lawyers argue that the legal problems differ according to the phases of the process of value creation by AI: the collection of data by AI agents, the learning by software (in the form of texts, images, voices or sounds, videos, codes) and the exploitation of applications thanks to user questions (prompts). The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enacted in 2016, governs how the personal data of natural persons can be processed and transferred in Europe. It was reinforced in 2024 by certain provisions of the European AI Act. In the United States, data is protected in particular by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA Patriot Act). In principle, the data is under opt-out and is not subject to opt-in (protected data that cannot be used). They can then in principle be used in the learning phase of the application, but in the operating phase, they cannot be reproduced in full in response to user prompts. They can only be partially transformed or reproduced. Digital markings of creations or inventions make it possible to better identify the data processed. At the stage of exploitation of the results of the application, it is difficult to measure their degree of creation or invention. The two lawyers note an increase in litigation for infringement as well as negotiations or transactions for the sharing of the value created by AI from patented inventions or protected intellectual creations. The trend would be towards negotiation rather than litigation because infringement is difficult to prove. Overall, lawyers believe that current patent, copyright and professional secrecy regulations are sufficient to protect inventors and creators. The increase in the number of cases decided and cases of use should be sufficient to establish jurisprudence and stabilise practices. Jean-Jacques Pluchart