States do not wait for a crisis to prepare for it, and the (preparation of the nation)—which has historically been linked to wars and disasters—must expand today to encompass a transformation that rearranges the relationship between the citizen and the state, and between human and machine. We learned our lesson with social media: technology entered rapidly and the culture of its use lagged behind, so the cybercrime law came after the problems spread as a remedial legislation. Why then repeat the experience? If an artificial intelligence system belonging to an official institution makes a mistake and harms a citizen, who is responsible: the employee, the institution, or the developing company? The phrase (artificial intelligence made a mistake) must not become a substitute for responsibility; every decision affecting a citizen must be backed by a specific human responsibility that can be held accountable. If we accept the mistake of a virtual employee in a transaction, what about a virtual judge issuing a ruling, or a virtual manager deciding the fate of employees? A day will come when we are asked: When does a virtual employee or virtual institution become a legal entity with rights and obligations, suing and being sued? This is a question the legislator must settle before reality imposes it.
This question reaches its utmost danger in medicine. Some laboratories have started sending results to the patient accompanied by an automated analysis explaining their condition before a doctor sees them, and many individuals and sectors resort to artificial intelligence for consultation on symptoms, medications, and dosages, receiving confident answers without a license or an accountable entity. The Medical and Health Liability Law No. 25 of 2018 was written for a world where humans make medical decisions; who is responsible if a doctor follows a wrong recommendation from the system, or if an official platform reassures a patient so that their treatment is delayed until their condition worsens? What is required is that the final medical decision remains with a licensed doctor, that no system is adopted before being tested on local data, that every laboratory clarifies that its automated analysis does not replace the doctor, and that the law is reviewed before the first case reaches the courts. Even more dangerous than the mistake is the shaking of trust. What if an account appears mimicking an official's voice and image, or speaking on behalf of an institution or hospital with no relation to them? This calls for a trusted digital identity for official virtual entities and figures, and legislation answering questions unknown to legal books, such as offending a virtual character representing an institution, or misleading content spreading about it.
Preparing society before preparing systems
Real preparation starts with the human being. Socially, artificial intelligence must not turn into a new gap where the elderly, rural residents, and low-income earners are left behind. Psychologically, we must deal early with people's anxiety about their jobs, with excessive dependence on the machine, and with relationships that may arise with virtual characters mimicking empathy. Culturally, preserving the citizen's mind remains a national responsibility; whoever gets used to the machine thinking for them gradually loses the ability to analyze and innovate, until we reach an intellectual stagnation that the smartest systems cannot compensate for. Therefore, we need a culture of inquiry and critical thinking starting from school, making artificial intelligence a tool that enriches thinking rather than replacing it. A prepared society receives technology with the greatest benefit and the least repercussions, without being forced into remedial solutions.
From usage to localization
Possessing the latest technologies does not mean readiness, and usage alone is not enough; the user remains at the mercy of the manufacturer who sets the terms, owns the data, and decides when to stop the service. We have seen how chips and advanced technologies turned into a file in conflicts and export restrictions, and we do not know when artificial intelligence itself will become a means of pressure on states or part of the sanctions imposed on them. What happens to a hospital or ministry whose services were built on a foreign system if it is suddenly cut off? Hence, we must employ artificial intelligence to localize technology, not just consume it: local solutions, competencies that develop rather than just operate, data that remains inside the state, and vital services whose operating key is not held by a single provider.
What is not announced is greater than what we see
What we see in government services is only the visible part. Some countries have made great progress in (Future Soldier) programs, a large part of which relies on technology, and developed nations have come to rely more and more on artificial intelligence in drawing policies, setting plans, and simulating scenarios before making decisions. Much of this progress takes place in secret programs surrounded by high security, and it has become clear that a large part of intelligence work has become purely technological. Facing this reality, the world will find itself forced to amend international laws to keep pace with wars and operations unlike what they were written for, and whoever does not prepare for this will find themselves outside the table of drafting these rules.
Preparation accelerates rather than hinders
None of this means hesitation or fear. Starting early to address these challenges accelerates the entry of technology and does not fight it: the citizen who trusts in the existence of rules protecting them embraces it, the institution that knows the limits of its responsibility adopts it, and the investor who sees legislative clarity arrives. As for delay, it makes its entry slower and more costly.
We are a state possessing qualified human power that has proven its presence in technology, medicine, and engineering, and we must not allow any challenge to limit our progress or hinder our benefit from artificial intelligence. Instead, we must turn challenges into rules paving the way. The difference between a state preparing for this transformation and one waiting until it is surprised is not in possessing technology, but in possessing vision. The question that should occupy us today is not: Will technology enter the state? Rather: Will we be the ones setting the rules for its entry, or will we leave it to reality to impose them on us, only to find ourselves one day trying to catch up?
