On Monday 7 September I was at Nieuwspoort for the iPoort debate on five years of the permanent Digital Affairs committee of the Tweede Kamer, the Dutch House of Representatives. The question: where do we go from here?
There was talk of AI, digital sovereignty and the relationship between market and government. Important subjects. Yet what stayed with me above all was the feeling that we know very well what we want to protect ourselves against, but make it far less clear where we want to go.
I missed longing.
Where is the positive story?
During the debate from the floor I raised that. Where is the wonder at what this technology makes possible? Where is the appealing picture of the future? The support I received made me notice that more people felt that need.
Of course we have to talk about power, privacy and dependence. But a society does not start moving simply because you tell it everything that could go wrong. People also want to know: what could this mean for my work, my children, my life?
A positive narrative is not cheerful packaging around an uncomfortable change. It is a credible story about what we want to improve, who benefits from it and how people can take part.
A nurse with more attention for a patient. A resident who is helped without being sent from one desk to the next. An employee who discovers that his talent is valuable in more places than his job title suggests.
That is what I want to talk about. Which society do we want to make possible with AI?
From talking about AI to experiencing what is possible
My own enthusiasm comes from daily use. I give AI tasks, have it look things up, prepare analyses and work out documents. That changes my relationship to the technology: from asking questions to handing over work.
That is what makes agentic AI interesting: systems that can use tools to carry out several steps in order to complete an assignment. Not only formulating an answer, but also doing something for you.
Such systems can make mistakes too. The model, the task, the available sources and the checks determine how much you can leave to them. You build trust task by task, by testing results and keeping it clear where human judgement remains necessary.
Anyone who experiences that for themselves has a different conversation. Which work can I hand over? Where can I achieve more with AI? And how much less time do we need to spend on work that currently drains us?
For me the finest promise is not that we can produce even more. It is that more room can be created for attention, creativity and connection. Less busy with the system, more present with each other.
Digital sovereignty is not digital isolation
When it comes to where technology comes from, it also helps to become concrete.
At 8vance we build Dutch matching technology. At the same time, in developing it we also use American AI models, for analysis and code for example. Which tools you use to build software is a different question from how your product works and where customer data ends up. Both questions deserve a careful answer.
The choice is not simply: everything Dutch or everything American. The question is: which technology do we use for what? Which data do we share? Which dependence do we accept? And can we switch if we need to?
I want a Europe that develops its own technology, sets requirements and works together. Trust in people and their ambitions can go perfectly well with firm agreements about oversight and responsibility.
America is also more than its government. In the podcast Een ander Amerika my brother Geerten Waling and Talitha Muusse explore a different perspective on the country. For me an invitation to look beyond the political news of the day as well, towards people, history and shared values. Without papering over geopolitical risks.
How do we stay on our feet in the in-between time?
For me the greatest task is not the technology itself. It is the transition to a society in which that technology makes a different distribution of work possible.
We are in an in-between time. Old systems are getting stuck in more and more places, while new ways of working and organising have not yet crystallised. Technology can change faster than education, organisations and rules. Meanwhile people simply have to pay their rent and do their work.
How do you stay on your feet when your profession changes, your familiar footing shifts and nobody can tell you exactly what will come in its place?
A story about productivity alone does not help there. People need perspective: a secure livelihood, room to learn, influence over their work and the confidence that they continue to matter.
After all, the disappearance of a task is not the same as the disappearance of someone’s value.
We can have shortages of people and see work disappear at the same time. The connection between the two does not arise by itself. For that we have to look beyond job titles: at tasks, talents, development opportunities and the work that is genuinely needed.
It is precisely that connection that occupies me. How do we organise work around what people and AI can do together? How do we help someone move from disappearing work to a meaningful new contribution?
And how do we make sure that the time we gain really does produce more human attention, instead of only higher targets?
A committee for transformation
That is why I would like Digital Affairs to develop emphatically into a committee for transformation. Not as an extra layer of administration, but as a connecting assignment: giving direction to this transition together with the committees for work, care, education and the economy.
There is already a starting point for that. The committee’s knowledge agenda mentions a future exploration of AI and data, and societal digital innovation. My proposal is to make that ambition tangible in people’s daily lives.
Every major AI development then comes with three questions: what do we want to make possible, what do we have to protect and what do people need in order to come through the transition?
A positive picture of the future does not have to deny the uncertainty. It has to help people take a next step within that uncertainty. Trust grows when you can try something, have influence over the outcome and notice that you are being supported.
Let us begin with one working session
My proposal to the committee and iPoort: organise a working session of ninety minutes about AI and the in-between time. With MPs, policymakers and people from practice. Choose one concrete case in advance, for example the administrative working day of a public service provider.
We work in three steps:
- Experience. Give AI a real, clearly defined task with public or fictitious data. Look at what works, what goes wrong and where human judgement remains necessary.
- Desire. Design a better working day together. What can AI take over? Where do we actually want more human attention? What does the employee need in order to keep up?
- Getting moving. Work out one proposal for a small-scale practical trial. Name who is responsible, the preconditions and how we assess the time gained, the quality and people’s experience.
The result: a shared picture of the future for that case, a view of the obstacles and a workable next step. The committee can use those insights for its scrutiny and legislative work; an organisation in the field can run the trial.
I would be glad to help shape and facilitate such a session. From my work with AI matching I bring the connection between technological possibilities, organising work differently and the question of what people need in order to move with it. For me those questions belong together.
We do not have to know exactly what the future looks like in order to begin. But we do have to dare to say what we want to make better for people.