Rethinking Impact Assessments with Nikola Nikacevic
Watch the episode
Summary
In this episode of the No Nonsense Sustainability podcast, host Ildiko Almasi Simsic welcomes Nikola Nikacevic, co-founder of EON+ and creator of the Envigo platform. They discuss the transformation of environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA) through digital technology. Nikola shares his journey from academia to entrepreneurship, focusing on how technology can streamline and enhance the impact assessment process.
The conversation delves into the evolution of impact assessments from static documents to interactive digital platforms. Nikola explains how Envigo helps practitioners conduct assessments more efficiently by providing standardized processes and collaborative digital workspaces. They also explore the challenges of integrating new technologies into traditional workflows and the potential for AI to further enhance these processes.
The episode concludes with insights into the future of impact assessments, emphasizing the need for cultural shifts and the role of large organizations in driving innovation. Nikola highlights the importance of standardization and the potential for AI to improve decision-making and efficiency in environmental governance.
Highlights
Nikola Nikacevic discusses the shift from static reports to digital platforms in ESIA.
Envigo platform offers standardized processes and collaborative workspaces for impact assessments.
The role of technology in improving transparency and decision-making is explored.
Challenges of integrating technology into traditional workflows are addressed.
The potential for AI to enhance impact assessments is discussed.
Importance of standardization in impact assessments is emphasized.
Large organizations' role in driving innovation is highlighted.
Key takeaways
1. Digital platforms like Envigo streamline impact assessments, making them more efficient and systematic.
2. Standardization in impact assessments can improve knowledge reuse and study quality.
3. AI has the potential to enhance decision-making and efficiency in environmental governance.
4. Cultural shifts and support from large organizations are crucial for embracing new technologies.
Timestamped breakdown
0:08 — Introduction to the Episode: Host Ildiko Almasi Simsic introduces the topic of reforming impact assessments with guest Nikola Nikacevic.
0:51 — Nikola's Journey into Impact Assessments: Nikola shares his background in engineering and his interest in environmental protection.
2:43 — Explaining the Envigo Platform: Nikola describes how Envigo helps streamline impact assessments without using buzzwords.
4:27 — Target Audience and Use of Envigo: Discussion on how different users integrate Envigo into their workflow.
7:20 — Nikola's Founder Story: Nikola explains his motivation to create a digital solution for impact assessments.
10:54 — Key Milestones in Envigo's Development: Nikola outlines the major developments and successes of the Envigo platform.
18:42 — Using Envigo for ESIA: Nikola walks through the process of using Envigo for environmental and social impact assessments.
28:21 — Digital Reporting and Commenting: Features of Envigo's digital reporting and commenting capabilities are discussed.
31:15 — Challenges in Marketing New Technology: The conversation turns to the challenges of marketing innovative solutions in the industry.
42:21 — Future of Impact Assessments: Discussion on what is needed to shift the industry towards embracing technology.
Edited transcript
Welcome back to the No Nonsense Sustainability podcast. Today we're discussing something that's really close to my heart: how to reform environmental social impact assessment practice through technology. My guest today is Dr. Nikola Nikacevic, who's a founder of EON+ and a co-author of Envigo, a digital platform for environmental and social impact assessments. He's also a full professor at the University of Belgrade, teaching process systems engineering with a background in chemical engineering. Welcome to the show, Nikola.
Thank you very much, Nico. Glad to be here.
Yeah. So how did you end up with technology as an engineer and in impact assessments?
Well, that's an interesting story actually. I do teach modeling and optimization, and so I'm very connected to digital and technology and software and numerical applications. I was always also interested in environmental protection and sustainable development and so on. So this was a natural interconnection. I just wanted to do something more into this sustainable domain and bring technology closer to it.
Yes. So that was around 15 years ago when I was thinking about it, and during that time I was also reading a lot of documents around impact assessment. They were so massive and bulky with hundreds of pages, and I couldn't actually, by reading it, despite all the words and efforts placed in it, find the key issues and the potential consequences of the projects to environments and society. Although I do read a lot of research papers, detailed research papers and...
Yeah, I mean you're preaching to the converted. Like, you know, we have the same issue. But then returning back to what your product is, I mean it's, I am guilty of this, using all the buzzwords: AI-powered digital tools, digital platforms, reforming workflows, innovating. If you had to explain in 60 seconds what Envigo does without using any of these words, what would you say?
Well, Envigo helps practitioners to do impact assessments more efficiently and systematically, allowing them to standardize the process, which then in return can increase the knowledge reuse and the quality of studies. More project leaders can better streamline the process and collaborate more smoothly in the digital virtual domain.
I would have to come in with Bob because it's all the streamlining. Like how, like how in practice, and I know we're going to go through the actual features and functionalities, but what does it mean in practice? Most often the users, as you know, they get a platform. Maybe it's intuitive, maybe it's something similar to what they've used before, but maybe it's something completely different. How are they then integrating it into that workflow process where they, you know, like get the, is it for reviewing the impact assessments? Is it for recording the impacts and then seeing how it's getting implemented? So what, who is the target audience and what specific tasks is it streamlining with?
Yes. Yes. That's a good question to understand. Yes. I wrote all and said all the buzzwords. Yes. But that, honestly, that's the key of it. So they are guided through the process in a digital way. So starting from defining the project activities, aspects, combining them with the receptors to identify the impacts of the proposed project to the environment and society. So how they do it, it's really manually working in teams throughout the world in Word documents and the other. And why here they're all gathered in one digital workspace, and they're guided through a framework that actually provides a lot of data and data sets that they could use. They could use them or add new or tailor them to the specific project and specific impact assessment study.
Are these data sets provided by the users, or are these part of the tool itself?
Those are part of the tool. Yes, we collected from the literature and best practices and good practices and the existing studies. We collect the data, various data sets, and then carefully classified it and systemized it and bring it into the platform. So they are offered as templates, but then there is full flexibility for users to change it, to add new, to rephrase it, to reorder and so on. So it's an interactive way where actually practitioners are still in command, but there is a lot of support for them just not to neglect some of the key issues or just to speed up the process and to make it more efficient. But also, as said, they could, through this, they could standardize for their company or even wider for the national regulation or authority. They could standardize the process and have it for specific industries also and so on.
Yeah. No, I find that fascinating and indeed, when founder to founder, we have recognized very similar issues in the industry but approaching it from a different perspective. I'm always interested to hear the personal founder stories of other people innovating with technology in our field. So what made you actually venture into not just entrepreneurship but into designing software? Because I know it's a big gap between writing the reports, being the consultant, or even teaching the students, and then actually making the decision to learn enough about the technology that you're able to gather your team to build something. There are so many moving parts, and a lot of people might have the idea, but they get lost in the execution. So what is your founder story? What was that moment in your career that was like, we cannot work like this anymore? This needs to change.
Yes. So as said previously, I'm in the IND domain of modeling and generally software and algorithms, and I wanted to do something for environmental impact assessment because, as said, I was really surprised that the studies are so massive and they're really hard to find the key issues and constant presses. What surprised me also is that there is, on the market, there was no software application that is tackling the core of the impact assessment process. Also, I was a bit surprised that actually there is no standardized method for impact identification and significance evaluation. So this all drove me into the endeavor, and obviously from the beginning, it was not clear to me how the market works exactly, what are really the needs of the consultants beyond these just general lacks or general ways how they work. And then this was more difficult actually to say, to understand really, and to see what are the demands than this technical part. Although to develop such a complex platform, it was also a challenge, to be honest, because I had to gather a really versatile team, and they are also not only just developers but designers, a lot of designers who would understand me and the vision and also who would understand the impact assessment on the level that is. So this is the difference in a typical software development company. There is a huge gap between what the software developers and the others do and what is the really design of the specific tailored product, and we needed to bridge this gap. Luckily, we had a really good understanding of the people who did it along with me. So this is how we started, and that was almost 10 years ago.
Yeah. So I was surprised to hear that this tool has been around for 10 years, and it's only now that we're really opening up to innovation and trying out different ways of working when, in fact, as you pointed out, there are so many little tasks and inefficiencies that can completely distort the way we evaluate impact. I was wondering, in this 10 years, what were the key milestones where the tool changed or new features were added as the technology evolved and the user expectations also evolved?
Exactly. I mean, this was a long endeavor. So when we started, the first milestone was to develop kind of an MVP at all that could catch up the whole process, and the first one was around EU regulation and for the Serbian market. So it was less in the capabilities and inflexibility, and then the market was small and undeveloped. So we needed to look beyond the national boundaries, and there actually we needed to find a way how to make a platform more flexible for adaptation to other national regulations or international or to be more customizable to users and companies. So this was after the first version. This was a big shift, and at the time that we worked with a large major energy company, and with them, actually, we gathered a lot of information. We used it in a large project that was in Vietnam. So it was a big success at the moment for us because actually this was the first ever impact assessment study, to our knowledge, that is made completely through a digital system with the cooperation of the 40 offices around the world with the practitioners and led by a development company who was the developer for this huge energy project. So this also helped us with getting the feedbacks from users and to collect it, to think about how it works, what could be improved, and so on. So this was the second point, and then the technology changed, and there were really massive improvements in the digital technologies meanwhile. So the third thing was that we connected the user feedbacks and the way how they worked with the new technology, and we decided to redesign it with the idea to actually include not only the practitioners, not only consultants, and project developers but also to open it more for the reviewers, for the authorities and regulators, as well as for the public. So this was a bigger change, and also we wanted to make it more flexible again for adaptations and more dynamic and more appealing and so on, and more user-friendly. So this was the third milestone that we managed to do it. It was difficult because the level of the platform was much higher for this ambition. So these are the lines that we crossed and the path more or less. I guess it's always a challenge. You design a user journey, and then some user comes, and they use it in a completely different way that even surprises you.
Exactly. Yes. Yes. That surprised me, and the views sometimes are not logical to us, but actually they're all valid, obviously.
Yeah. No, you know, like that's my everyday reality. I come up with the perfect plan how the user might use it, what's the flow, what's their journey within the app, and then it goes out the window as soon as we get a new organization onboarded. Before we go into a detailed breakdown of the workflow, I think it's important to emphasize the added value that these digital tools can have in terms of certifying and having a digital audit trail and a record that cannot be edited that could inform competent authorities, lenders, and we've actually, we're building it into some of our newer products where either the developer or we can give this auditor view into the tool. So they see what was recorded, and we certify with the digital audit trail that it wasn't edited or augmented by the project developer. Is that something that's an important feature based on your 10 years of working with this tool?
Well, yes. You know, that is one of the key, one of the, I would not say the key one. Why? Because still impact assessments are responsibility, and the truth behind and the validity of data is a responsibility of the project developers and consultants, mostly independent consultants that work on it. So they're doing it, let's say, for themselves before they go to the public and to the reviewers. At the point they do it, the data should be consistent, checked, and everything else. So this gate going outside is very important and keep the records there how it was after in the process of reviewing, revision, and public consultations and so on. This track is quite important, and we take care of all of the data, obviously. And what is for us, what is the bigger challenge and actually a bigger benefit for our clients could be that actually data is there, all the structure is there for one project, and then this could be reused for new projects, obviously tailored, changed, and so on. But the knowledge that is accumulated throughout the process for one, two, or 10 projects for one consultancy or developer can be much better used than in the future project, which boosts the productivity and efficiency. This is the model which was never used because actually paper, hundreds of papers that are there in one study never can be used, reproduced, checked afterwards, and so on. So this is the big difference between word-made impact assessments and the digital database approach.
Yeah, that's, I think, a very important point because we often discount the important primary data collected for other projects or for, you know, not even our own projects but projects in the sector within the country, especially if we're looking at biodiversity and land use. These can really inform how we're setting up our own primary data collection. And, you know, when I was thinking about my Ezra and how to build this industry knowledge base, that was one of the key added values that I identified from gathering project documents because very often you might be aware of projects around your projects, but sometimes you're not, and sometimes they're like older ones, but that still give value to your evaluation of the on-site reality. Okay. So now let's imagine we are a consultancy and we're using Envigo for our ESIA. Can you walk us through the process? What kind of data we input? What do we see on the dashboards? How do we use that, like step by step along the ESIA process?
Yes. Thanks. So I will go through the key core functionalities of the platform. The first one is the workspace. We call it workspace, and it's a really distinctive digital framework capturing the essence of the impact assessment process in a very intuitive and interactive interface. So this workspace consists of genuine and editable modules such as checklists, matrices, scoring processes, reporting modules, and so on.
Are these editable or tailorable if I were, can I bring my own checklist?
Exactly. So we are offering the checklist, and I will talk about it just in a minute, but users can edit everything. On a higher level, we could modify the whole workspace. It could be rearranged with these general modules to be reduced or enriched depending on the regulations or industry-wise requirements or company-wise requirements. So it could be changed completely, this workspace, and also it could be adapted for other risk assessment processes, which is very important, for instance, for ecosystem service or LEAP process or some other similar risk assessment processes. So this is the workspace, and the second thing, very, very important, is these data sets and templates. We have a number of environmental and social data sets offered in these user-friendly checklists, which are then processed in matrices and later on in scoring processes. What are the examples? For instance, there are lists and templates of project activities, aspects, pathways, receptors, mitigation measures, monitoring actions, report templates, stakeholder engagement plans, plans for baseline studies, and so on. As said previously, data is collected from different literature sources and practice, and it's updated regularly. A company, as said, in a process of standardization, can also make a standard set of data and flows, and they're classified there and structured. The expert has the flexibility to change all of the data there, to import their data, also to reorder the specific items, add new, and connect it through matrices and so on.
So if I enter this workspace, is it just mine, or is it the projects, and I see the rest of my team, and then also if I click on a template to fill it out, will that automatically save and go through the same process? Can multiple users edit the same template?
Exactly. That's the point, the collaboration in this single spot of workspace. So it can be done, and that's one of the main points. It could be done by different people and different teams. So they could spread the work, some, for instance, who's responsible for biodiversity, they could work on these ones or the other or check and so on. So it is very dynamic, and you could go into phases, and there are also versions, and it's automatically saved and obviously transferred throughout because it's on the cloud, and it's transferred to other users. We also use some security features that, for instance, if someone is working on some parts, it's locked for the others in order not to rewrite and so on. So we really take care about the protocols and how to secure the data is not lost or overridden at some points. Yes. So multi-tenant work is really important there.
Yeah. And then let's say we set up this workspace, we filled out the templates with our information. What happens next?
Yes. The next is the methodologies and methods for impact significance evaluation. We offer different models, for instance, for the environment, for the social impacts, for ecosystem services, for cumulative impacts, for incidental ones, and so on. So different models we offer, but also users can add their models, their scoring models into the system. So it's flexible; they could tailor it. What is there identified as an impact then is evaluated, their significance, and obviously the consequences on the environment. After that, the step is to define mitigation measures, and we use quite smart matching and filtering of the impact types that are generated and the bulky, large data sets of mitigation measures. So the ones that are appropriate can be suggested for further fine-tuning and editing. This is similar for the mitigation measures and then for monitoring actions that need to be conducted in a follow-up period. So this is the next step, and we also have a quite elaborated and comprehensive method for impact assessment of the project alternatives, which is never done in a detailed way in impact assessment practice.
Yeah, actually, you know, like the cumulative impacts, the analysis of alternatives, these usually don't get a lot of airtime on these projects.
Exactly. Because they're really spending a lot of time in many other segments, and then when it comes to the key parts like, okay, how are the alternatives, they're not done in a detailed way. Sometimes it's not only that there is no time, sometimes it's like, okay, follow the proposed project, and it's too late to change some things and so on. So there are issues there that are not only about how the work is done but other things.
Yeah, and I'm quite happy to see that even the methodology could be tailored because that was one of the discussions I had with my team and then I had with other partners. As a private sector company, can we set a standard? Can we say that just because this methodology or this template exists and it's widely used in the industry, we are going to set that as the standard? My approach at the time was like, no, I'm just going to let people have the information, and they do whatever they want with it. They use the methodology, the templates are flexible, but then when I'm talking to IFIs who are developing their own tools, I'm always telling them, you have the potential to set a standard. You're already doing that with performance standards, guidelines, guidance notes, and even in these digital tools, if you say this is the methodology for impact assessment, then that helps us, like private sector companies, to develop solutions that follow that accepted methodology.
Exactly. This was the idea that we followed. So from the beginning, we wanted to help them and to offer some of the templates and methods and so on for the ones who want to follow, and also the methods. They're very simple methods that we have, like only diversifying whether the impact is minor, medium, or let's say high, or we do have really elaborated multi-criteria methods also offered by us. But as you said, it could be really up to users, up to practitioners, what methodology they want to use, and they could implement one. But exactly, the national authorities or IPIs should set up the standard, and this is what I talked about, the buzzwords at the beginning, how to standardize, and this is what we work on actually.
Yeah, and then let's get to the next segment, which is our joint pet peeve when you're trying to market a product. Sorry, I didn't get the final step of the process. I need to talk a little bit about it because it's very important, and it's digital reporting and commenting because we also offer a powerful web-based reporting application with many navigation and importing and editing capabilities, but also reviewing capabilities with commenting, tracking, versioning, and so on. Also, the visual elements that are like charts, tables, graphs that are generated through our digital method approach within the assessment process can be easily connected to these reporting. So the reports are, let's say, at the end digital, they are easy for navigation, looking good, and then the other stakeholders can participate directly in the commenting and public participations and so on, and the comments are then collected, sorted, and really, which is, I think, very important for efficient participation of the citizens and also reviewers, and to say they have different roles and permissions within a system. So they could not go, obviously, to edit the templates or to do the scoring. They could read out the reports, but these digital reports that are available.
And the report stays within the platform. So there's no more Word and PDF documents circulating around. There's one version in a secure platform with various access levels.
Exactly. But there is a challenge because a lot of clients actually say, okay, we need the PDF, you know, we need to send it to regulators or whatever. So this is the rule, and so what we do is actually print out. So we have engines that turn these digital reports that also can be like hundreds of pages into PDFs with auto-formatting. This also expedites the process of formatting and so on because it's all automated within the system.
Yeah, I think we definitely need a little bit of a cultural shift before the industry is truly able to embrace these new tools and technologies. And that's the next thing that I want to talk to you about. I know the pain of coming up with something new, trying to market it, understanding how it works, saving me hours and days of work, and then being faced with the usual "we have co-pilot" from the companies and the organizations. So have you seen over the past decade any major shifts in attitude towards embracing technology from startups, or do you also get that "we have chat GPT or co-pilot, and we don't need any more technology?"
Well, to be honest, you know, when we show it and they do piloting, they're quite interested in the innovation, particularly this like improving the collaboration in the workspace, digital workspace, and they're aware that by accumulating their knowledge there, setting up it there, that they could reuse it and that that could help.
But that's improving the collaboration. Like these are all, you know, we always say, but a tool will not change the culture of collaboration, and just because they use the same tool, they each work independently and separately, putting in their little pieces. So do you think your clients understand that it's also more of an attitude and culture shift in embracing different subtopics within the ESIA world? Because I feel like you have the main topics that get the spotlight, and then you have these afterthought items which are so much further down the chain that nobody even really cares.
That's a big challenge for them, but also then reflected to us. I agree. It's not just putting them in the same digital domain that it works well. They need to adopt new ways of work. They need to figure out how is best to actually collaborate there, how to split the work or interfere within each other, and so on. So this is something that actually takes time, and this is why the practitioners are not so thrilled about it because they have to invest time to shift from their working in their office or site or whatever meeting to something else. I hope they will realize that they have to invest some time looking into the future, not only the projects. They're very concerned about the current projects. They never have time to invest into digital transformation. They look in the fiscal years, and they sell the hours, and they're a little bit concerned. Okay, will this digital replace me or reduce my hours? There's also that kind of thinking. I feel it, and I heard from them. So they don't comprehend, and they don't have enough motivation seeing it that actually this kind of digital work and supported work can really boost the quality, boost the collaboration, and all the buzzwords that we could use, but actually, I mean, I believe in that that could happen with a shift in mind and also investment, some investment in time and tools.
Yeah, I think your Envigo also has AI capabilities. You're using AI to allocate, like assess the scope and magnitude of the risks and impacts, and also the mitigation measures are matched using AI, right?
Well, we are testing it, so we are using algorithms, the other algorithms. I would not call them AI or machine learning because they're on a different basis, but we are testing AI, for instance, for better prompting. So some of the partial outcomes from our platform could be as structured data could be really good prompts for the agents, for the AI trained models. So this is what we are investigating. So it's still in an investigation phase, even not on a level of like beta testing or something like that. So it's not offered still, but we are really thinking about and believing that it could really help in summarizing the external resources, structuring, but also predicting when you get the structured data from there, some predictions and some recommendations about what are the key issues, where to focus attention, how to plan the baseline studies optimally, and the rest, how to also for the reviewers, for the authorities also to summarize a little bit, to focus on particular parts or non-compliances and the rest. So I'm a believer in it, but still, we need to get there.
Yeah, I mean, this generative AI is literally all that my company does, and my biggest challenge when I'm talking to clients is them not understanding that a generic LLM is not the same as an orchestrated generative AI system that gives you the outputs that you need. You know, that's like the two sides of how the users use it. So how they prompt, but there's also that aspect of orchestration because now it's, as you know, it's not a question of having a better algorithm or a better LLM, the large language model, like it's not a question of that. The question is how do you build up that system so those algorithms and those LLM support each other and give you exactly the kind of critical evaluation that you need based on how you would make decisions as a human expert. And then the next step is what information you need from the user because I don't know if it was the same for you, but when we were building, often I couldn't even explain why I know what I know. You know, we had this project, and like, why do I know it's a category A? Like, it's obvious, but if you're like thinking like, okay, how would I explain this to my students, how do I explain this to a child, like very basic steps? What are these signs that I pick up on even instinctively after a few years in the industry that make me certain that that project is in data category A and then translate this thought process into a machine-readable format so that they deliver exactly what you want. And I guess when we're talking about software and AI purpose-built tools, the gap is this, that you see the generic tools and you don't understand how you can build those solutions that will not give you the recipe, will not give you your, you know, the phases of the moon or the analysis of your horoscope, but they will do the ENS tasks as an expert research assistant basically.
Exactly. This is like, you're talking about the exact things that we are thinking of and we are feeling and intuitively or through work or through thinking and so on, but from different angles. So these are angles that you're working on, are the next step for us actually, and I think and I believe that actually the work in the workspace and with the existing data and through the process is something that would also boost some the use of AI and actually the efficiency of that work. So what to say? I think this is a matching thing that your company and what our company is doing for the impact assessment area, and it is not easy for the companies to reach this specific knowledge and to reach actually to the level that they could understand really what they want. This is the question. They want something, but they could not formalize it in a digital way or a digital application or AI model and so on. So this kind of guidance with the feedback is quite important, and the general tools don't work, for instance, for us, as you mentioned, chat GPT or co-pilot. They cannot produce the good results on our side. The general solutions for environmental management and health and safety, they're always like, okay, you could use it for impact assessment. Yes, but you know, you have to put so many efforts, and they're so and they're more for follow-ups and monitoring that actually become useless or can be used only for one bit of part of the whole thing. So really, I think they should trust, the companies should trust the innovators and the startups and be more open for those innovations, especially the ones who are bridging the digital and specific knowledge as your company does and hopefully ours.
Yeah. You know, it reminds me of a quote by Henry Ford who said, "If I ask people what they wanted, they would have said, 'We want faster horses.' They didn't even think that a car was possible." And I kind of feel that way when I'm talking to clients. So they are now very well socialized with the generic chatbots. So they're like, "Okay, how about this or that?" And you and I know that there's so much further to go and so much more could be done. And some parts of the ENS world, especially like the climate risk modeling, disaster risk management, they're already using quite advanced machine learning and deep learning algorithms to make these predictions. We're actually piloting a strategic environmental assessment using machine learning algorithms from these disaster risk elements and building on our own knowledge base. So looking at the future, what do you think we need as an industry to shift this culture of working and open up to embrace the technology on an individual level?
Well, it's not easy for individuals to make these shifts. Also, it's not easy for smaller companies or startups to make this transformation and big industry transformation. So what we experienced is like, okay, the clients from the practitioner side, they look over towards authorities mostly, but also for their clients, which are project developers, and they're all waiting for the good moment and so on. So this is why this shift is slow, and one of the reasons and not happening still on a scale that is important. But then when you look into more, who should be initiating this move? And I think in the future, this should be done by the authorities like the European Union or the IFIs like IFC or World Bank because they really have the power to set up. They could also be open to the startups and the other companies. They could gather a consortium that is really relevant and also have the resources and money to support it because I think this collaborative way is much better if we're talking about big shifts like in impact assessments should be done. Okay, there were some European projects like a DREAMS project that were from Denmark and the other, but this was not enough actually, or Melena project that is from IFC, but it's also kind of partial. So I think they should think about it, IFC or EBRD, of how to find, let's say, resources and time and open up a call for such a change, and they could benefit, and then the others can follow. One of the key aspects of this development would be incorporating the AI, but just AI-tuned, AI-secured, and so on, double-checked.
Yeah, no, I definitely think that the big IFIs and national authorities changing their attitude and embracing it and knowing that it only makes a good expert better. It can't make an average expert amazing. It works with your knowledge and how you're using it. So it's not going to solve the problems for you, and it's not going to replace you, maybe in 10, 15, 20 years, but then we would be having a very different conversation around it. I think these institutions can lead the way in embracing and making sure that the industry knows that it is safe to use because I know we just had the IIA event in Bologna all about artificial intelligence, but it was still more balanced between risks and opportunities. The risk aspect was very vocal and very much emphasized in every room that I attended, every event where I've been.
Yes, I agree. I was there, and I saw this. They're keen. It's, let's say, buzzwords, and they're fluffy, and they're interested about it, but still very concerned, very judging, and only testing only the general tools. I never saw really that maybe a few examples that are really digging it the right way and moving it, especially within the authorities. Some in Asia are doing it. For instance, Hong Kong, I think they're doing it quite okay. They're working on it. So yes, the conference was called Impact Assessment in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, but there actually artificial intelligence is far behind, far in front of the impact assessment there, where there's a huge possibility. As said before, this was the same that we experienced, although we're not making contents like AI. We are really providing support, and really the control is in practitioners' hands completely, but still they're really concerned whether this will be. So this shift in mind has to be really, and new generation, I think, will take it more smoothly, will take it more easily because they are digital from birth and throughout their education and early career. So I think that time will come to do it, but as said, I think it should be done by the large players because they could set up the rules, standards, and so on.
Yeah, thank you, Nikola, for this discussion. You know, we could talk about this forever, but this is where we finish for today. Thank you for being here with me.
Thanks, Io. It was a great pleasure to talk to you today about these important things.
And thank you for being here with us. I cannot stop talking about AI innovation, and I'm so excited to see where the ENS industry will be even 12 months from now. Thank you for being here with us today, and we'll be back with some more.
Comments