• Case

  • Inclusion

  • Citizenship

  • Innovation

[Feature] Artificial intelligence and public services: what doctrine of use?

Published on 16 April 2025
Download in PDF

Summary

Foreword

The third phase of the national strategy for artificial intelligence (AI), released a few days before the Summit, includes a major section devoted to the implementation of AI for public policy.

"AI will become a priority focus translated into ministerial roadmaps to be presented no later than June 2025. (...) The Ministry of Public Action, Civil Service and Simplification will coordinate interministerial actions to deploy AI in the public sector. (...) AI will be one of the priorities of the State Reform Fund".

" A plan to deploy generative AI tools will enable every agent to benefit from AI assistants capable of saving them time and efficiency in their daily administrative tasks. (...) This trusted AI will always have a public agent in the loop (...) The tight steering of these deployments will enable their performance to be assessed in terms of time savings, costs and efficiency. On the basis of this evaluation and feedback, proven use cases will be deployed on a larger scale.

In 2022, the Conseil d'État had laid the foundations for an AI administrative doctrine, organized around seven principles of trusted public AI.

A few months later, ChatGPT burst onto the scene. The rise of generative AI is reshuffling the deck.

As artificial intelligence systems (AIS) make their appearance in many areas of public action, it's time for feedback.

The Conseil économique, social et environnemental (CESE), the Défenseure des droits, the Cour des comptes, the Commission de l'IA and the Direction générale de l'administration et de la fonction publique (DGAFP) all delivered their initial analyses in 2024 and early 2025: they all advocate strengthening interministerial management and clarifying a doctrine for the use of AI in public services.

  • By emphasizing the "empowering" dimension of AI for agents, the AI Commission thus sketches out, in hollow, a doctrine of digital transformation that would be deployed "from below" : "The arrival of AI could be an opportunity to give public agents the ability to transform their own work, rather than undergoing transformation from above".
  • The Défenseure des droits, responsible for defending the rights and freedoms of users of public services, is examining the growing use of algorithms or artificial intelligence (AI) systems in French public services, particularly in central government. Despite the "efficiency gains in decision-making ", the Défenseure des droits warns against " infringements of users' fundamental rights", and calls for human intervention to guarantee respect for users' rights.
  • In June 2024, the DGAFP published a strategy for the use of artificial intelligence in human resources management (HRM) in the state civil service. It highlights use cases and issues guiding principles.
  • While the Cour des Comptes recommends prioritizing "the missions and processes for which AI is likely to deliver significant gains in efficiency and productivity", it also outlines the main lines of a "robust public AI", based on sobriety in terms of data, models and infrastructures, and the ability of organizations to retain full control over them.
  • The CESE calls on administrations to question the purposes of AI systems. To this end, it formulates two conditions for their deployment: "that they improve the quality of public service and the working conditions of the agents who contribute to it", and "that the obligations of transparency, accountability and explicability are genuinely applied, when AI systems are deployed to enforce the law, or when they lead to individual decisions producing legal, economic or social effects that affect individuals".

    • Référence :

Seven principles for "trusted public artificial intelligence" (Conseil d'État, 2022)

"In August 2022, the Conseil d'État published a 360-page study on the contribution of AI to public action. The Conseil d'Etat therefore recommended that public authorities immediately define a doctrine for the use of AI: an administrative doctrine, which would make it possible to "control risks of all kinds (individual and collective)" and "guarantee the public utility of AI systems in all circumstances".

The high court proposed to base the use of AI in the public sphere on seven principles:

  • Human primacy. "Public AIS are conceived as tools at the service of human beings, which presupposes that they serve a general interest purpose and that the interference in fundamental rights and freedoms that results from their implementation is not disproportionate to the benefits expected from them".
  • Performance. "Deterioration in the quality of a service due to automation is one of the most destructive factors for confidence in digital tools, particularly when, in the case of public services, users have no option but to turn to a competitor. Public authorities must therefore identify system performance indicators (accuracy, technical robustness, response time, etc.), and define the acceptable level of performance, taking into account the consequences of the error, while ensuring that the quality of the service provided is not adversely affected.
  • Equity and non-discrimination. "AIS designers must choose, from among the various conceptions of fairness, the one that will guide the operation of the systems, and formalize this choice, while respecting the principle of equality. They must also take care to prevent unintentional discrimination, a particularly important issue for AIS decision support systems based on machine learning".
  • Transparency. "This principle includes, at the very least, the right of access to the system's documentation, a requirement of loyalty consisting in informing people of the use of an AIS with regard to them, the auditability of the system by the competent authorities, and the guarantee of explicability. The technical complexity of certain AIS, in particular those based on deep learning, and the difficulty or inability to formalize the reasoning that led to the result produced, run the risk of accentuating the feeling of mistrust if the people on whom this result has an impact cannot obtain, in simple language, an explanation of the main reasons behind the decision or recommendation formulated by the system".
  • Safety (cybersecurity). " Any AIS must integrate the issue of safety, i.e. preventing computer attacks and resolving their consequences."
  • Environmental sustainability. "The environmental impact of AIS must be taken into account in the strategy of public AI in general, around a principle of global neutrality of AI, as in the design of each system, by comparing the extra performance enabled by higher computing power with its ecological footprint."
  • Strategic autonomy. "Since AIS increasingly contribute to the essential functions of public power, they must be designed in such a way as to guarantee the nation's autonomy. While digital autarky would be an illusory and counter-productive objective, France must equip itself with the necessary resources, in terms of skills, infrastructure and data research structures, to reduce and choose its dependencies".

However, administrations have not waited for such a doctrine to be put into practice, here and there, with varying degrees of maturity. "Above all, we note a very great heterogeneity in the maturity of administrations, the degree of progress of reflections and projects, and the scale of investments devoted to them", writes the Council. Pleading for a "proactive and lucid " strategy for the deployment of public AI, the high court invited the State to strike a balance between the development of AI for internal use and AI that directly benefits citizens, between uses dedicated to "service" and uses dedicated to "control".

Référence :

Giving public employees the ability to transform their own work, rather than having it transformed from above (AI Commission, 2024).

The AI Commission, created in 2023, devotes a chapter of the report it submitted to the Prime Minister in March 2024, to the implementation of AI in public services. In it, she draws up a harsh assessment of the digitization of public services. " Too often, digital transformation has stopped at the dematerialization of procedures, without transforming in depth the flow of information, or the processing of requests. Promises to personalize (and therefore humanize) public services, to speed up processing and to simplify the work of agents have not been kept.

For the Commission, AI is first and foremost " an opportunity to relaunch the digital transformation of public services".

"Through its ease of use, generative AI offers the opportunity to unleash agents' creativity by enabling them to experiment with technology at their own level, without always needing a specific system". The Commission therefore recommends " encouraging public servants to seize these tools, all the more so when they are free for occasional use (...) The public service would benefit from equipping public servants with configurable AI so that they can deploy them themselves, whether these are off-the-shelf solutions or specific to the public service If public servants appropriate AI, uses will abound and will make it possible to identify more quickly where AI has value".

By emphasizing the "empowering" dimension of AI for civil servants, the AI Commission thus sketches out a doctrine of digital transformation that would be deployed from below : "The arrival of AI could be an opportunity to give civil servants the ability to transform their own work, rather than having it transformed from above".

Two pitfalls: the "big AI project" and the "all ChatGPT" approach

She warns, in passing, against two pitfalls to be avoided: " On the one hand, the 'big AI project', designed to do everything, replace everything, developed far from agents, users and the reality of public service. On the other hand, the "all ChatGPT", in which a commercial and foreign universal conversational robot would become the only use of AI in public service".

Citizens themselves could be called upon to contribute to AI-enabled public services, " whether to define how they operate or to participate in their construction. Their involvement is crucial if AI-enabled transformation of public services is to avoid reinforcing bureaucratic, inexplicable and distant centralization". The Commission mentions the " alignment assemblies " convened in Taiwan to define rules for AI deployment and behavior in the public service.

To give wide access to generative AI services and avoid double investment, the Commission recommends that the capacity for technical steering and execution in public services be strengthened. "At inter-ministerial level, a real technology directorate should be able to provide not only doctrine, but also quality infrastructures (hosting, computing power, software factory, digital identity etc. ), expertise and transformation budgets. At a time when the State is seeking to reinternalize skills and circulate them between ministries, it needs to strengthen its ability to produce quality digital products".

Off-the-shelf AI solutions?

The Commission, incidentally, sets the terms for a debate on the use of off-the-shelf AI solutions.

"From 2024, public services will have to decide whether to use off-the-shelf AI solutions, enter into partnerships with companies, or redevelop their own tools. (...) Off-the-shelf solutions will have the advantage of performance and simplicity, as they are immediately available, and can even be integrated directly into agents' tools (office suite, search engine). Some ministries, for example, have banned the use of IT development tools such as Github's Copilot or GPT-4.

"However, the Commission reminds us that off-the-shelf solutions have their limits: "either because they don't fit in with existing tools, or because they aren't adapted to certain sensitive uses. It would be tricky to ask ChatGPT to summarize a memo to a minister, for example. But it would be absurd for every ministry and local authority to redevelop or buy an AI capable of summarizing a memo without leaking the data.

Référence :

Human intervention as a guarantee of user rights (Défenseure des droits, 2024)

In a report published on November 13, 2024, the Défenseure des droits, responsible for defending the rights and freedoms of users of public services, examines the growing use of algorithms or AI systems in French public services, particularly in central government.

"Despite gains in decision-making efficiency ", the Défenseure des droits warns against " infringements of users' fundamental rights".

In this report, the Human Rights Defender examines the effectiveness of two guarantees that are particularly important in ensuring respect for these rights: human intervention in decision-making and control of systems, and the requirement for transparency towards users.

Although user complaints are still few and far between, the Défenseure des droits has identified a"systematic" problem of trust between users and the administration. In this respect, she points out that the transparency of public action must be seen as a "prerequisite for combating possible errors, abuses and discrimination (...) However, information obligations are sometimes little or poorly respected due to the opacity of procedures carried out by or with the help of algorithms".

When an administrative decision is said to be " partially automated ", a public official must take a positive, concrete and significant action based on or alongside the result generated by the algorithm, in the decision-making process. The Défenseure des droits notes, particularly on the basis of the complaints it receives, that this intervention is sometimes non-existent and sometimes inconsistent or biased, when the people involved in individual decision-making tend to endorse the results produced by the system without questioning them.

In view of these limitations, and their impact on the rights of public service users, the Human Rights Defender recommends the introduction of mandatory criteria and operating procedures to define more precisely the nature of the human intervention required.

Read more :The Défenseure des droits calls for vigilance regarding the use of algorithms in public services

Référence :

Article that might interest you

La Défenseure des droits appelle à la vigilance sur l’usage des algorithmes dans les services publics

Attribution de prestations sociales, calcul d’impôts, accès à l’enseignement supérieur : de plus de plus de démarches administratives sont désormais partiellement ou complètement automatisées. Que reste-t-il de l’intervention humaine dans la prise de décision ? Quels sont les effets de ces nouvelles pratiques sur les droits des usagers ?Dans un rapport publié le 13 novembre 2024, la Défenseure des droits, en charge de la défense des droits et libertés des usagers des services publics, étudie l’usage croissant des algorithmes ou systèmes d’intelligence artificielle (IA) dans les services publics français, et notamment dans l’administration centrale.« Malgré un gain d’efficacité dans la prise de décisions », la Défenseure des droits met en garde contre « les atteintes aux droits fondamentaux des usagers ».Une algorithmisation massive des services publicsDans ce rapport, la Défenseure des droits examine l’effectivité de deux garanties particulièrement importantes pour assurer le respect de ces droits : l’intervention humaine dans la prise de décision et la maîtrise des systèmes, et l’exigence de transparence à l’égard des usagers.Afin d’automatiser, d’améliorer ou d’accélérer certaines procédures, l’administration a recours de manière croissante à des algorithmes ou à des systèmes d’IA. Les décisions administratives individuelles, prises par les administrations, peuvent ainsi être partiellement automatisées - si une intervention humaine est prévue - ou entièrement automatisées.Pour la Défenseure des droits, cette évolution est à la fois porteuse de progrès et de risques pour les droits fondamentaux des usagers. Du côté des avantages, dans le cadre d'une appropriation et utilisation des algorithmes et systèmes d’IA qui soit responsable et conforme au droit, ces évolutions peuvent permettre un processus décisionnel plus efficace et mieux informé par le traitement d’une multitude de données, ou encore de contribuer à limiter l’arbitraire et permettre d’atteindre une égalité de traitement, les agents humains n’étant pas toujours neutres et leurs décisions pouvant s’avérer discriminatoires. En revanche, les systèmes algorithmiques font aussi peser des risques majeurs sur les droits et libertés, comme l’Institution l’a souligné dans deux rapports consacrés, l’un en 2020, au risque d’automatisation des discriminations induit par les algorithmes et, l’autre en 2021, à l’impératif respect des droits fondamentaux dans l’utilisation des technologies biométriques.Décisions « partiellement automatisées » : l’intervention humaine comme garantie du respect des droits des usagersLorsqu’une décision administrative est dite « partiellement automatisée », un agent public doit effectuer une action positive, concrète et significative à partir ou à côté du résultat généré par l’algorithme, dans la prise de décision.La Défenseure des droits relève, notamment sur le fondement des réclamations qu’elle reçoit, que cette intervention se révèle parfois inexistante – comme c’est le cas pour la procédure d’affectation en lycée Affelnet, ou encore de Parcoursup – et parfois inconsistante ou biaisée, lorsque les personnes qui interviennent dans la prise de décision individuelle ont tendance à avaliser les résultats produits par le système sans les questionner.Face à ces limites, et à leurs effets sur les droits des usagers des services publics, la Défenseure des droits recommande d’édicter des critères et des modes opératoires obligatoires pour qualifier plus précisément la nature de l’intervention humaine requise.Les risques d'atteintes aux droits fondamentauxBien que les réclamations d'usagers soient encore peu nombreuses, la Défenseure des droits identifie une problématique "systématique" de confiance entre les usagers et l'administration. Elle rappelle, à ce titre, que la transparence de l'action publique doit être envisagée comme un « prérequis pour lutter contre d'éventuels erreurs, abus et discriminations", dans l'esprit de l'article 15 de la Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen. Or, les obligations d'information sont parfois peu ou mal respectées en raison de l'opacité des procédures réalisées par ou à l'aide d'algorithmes. Le rapport pointe également le risque de discrimination automatisée. Si, en France, il existe une interdiction de prendre des décisions administratives individuelles sur le fondement de données sensibles (comme la situation économique, le sexe, le lieu de résidence...), le règlement général sur la protection des données (RGPD) reste moins exhaustif et contraignant en la matière. Des exemples, comme celui de l'outil développé par l'agence nationale pour l'emploi en Autriche en 2019, montrent que ce risque de discrimination automatisée a pu se concrétiser, y compris dans le secteur public.Le devoir de transparenceQuand il a pris une décision fondée sur un traitement algorithmique, un service public doit fournir un certain nombre d’informations à l’usager concerné mais également au public. Cette exigence légale de transparence qui découle d’un principe constitutionnel, doit permettre de comprendre certaines décisions pour pouvoir en débattre, voire les contester utilement.Quelles recommandations ?Face aux risques d'atteintes aux droits fondamentaux des usagers, la Défenseure des droits énumère plusieurs recommandations :préciser le cadre (critères et mode opératoire) de l’intervention humaine d’un fonctionnaire lorsqu’une décision des services publics est prise avec l’appui de systèmes algorithmiques ou d’IA ; s'assurer de la disponibilité des compétences en interne et de la bonne maîtrise du fonctionnement de ces systèmes par les agents ; introduire des sanctions en cas de non-respect du droit à l’information des usagers ;consacrer un droit à l’explication des décisions administratives individuelles partiellement ou entièrement automatisées ; soutenir la recherche pour comprendre les effets de ces systèmes et alimenter le débat public ; encourager l’engagement d’associations sur ce sujet, questionner les objectifs et réorienter le système en tenant compte des remontées des usagers. 

  • Data

  • Inclusion

  • Citizenship

Civil service: Using AI to support rather than replace human work (DGAFP, 2024)

In June 2024, the Direction Générale de l'Administration et de la Fonction Publique (DGAFP) published a strategy for the use of artificial intelligence in human resources management (HRM) in the state civil service.

"Although the least skilled occupations are currently the most exposed to automation, generative AI can improve the performance of less skilled workers, while advances in generative AI can increase the exposure of highly skilled occupations."

The DGFAP has identified 26 cases of use of AI for HRM in the state civil service:

  • five use cases deemed particularly "desirable": analysis of internal survey results; contextual training recommendations; personalized learning; drafting job descriptions; identification of emerging skills).
  • four others considered "no-no's": early detection of mental health problems; analysis of relationships between colleagues; automated video interviews with candidates; recognition and reward systems.

DGFAP concludes with three guiding principles:

  • " Human control: consultation and autonomy (setting the framework for use in collaboration with employee representatives; declaration of AI use by agents; freedom of agents to use AI tools or their results) ;
  • Protection of the agent and the administration Data protection: legal and transparent use of (private and sensitive) data; robustness and security of AI;
  • Ethics : transparency, justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, non-discrimination."

    • Référence :

Productivity, trust, frugality: pillars of a robust public AI (Cour des Comptes, 2024)

Since 2015, Bercy has deployed, on an experimental basis, no fewer than 35 artificial intelligence programs (taxation, customs controls, anti-money laundering, public statistics, consumer law...). On October 22, 2024, the Cour des Comptes published its observations on the implementation of AI at the Ministry of the Economy and Finance.

The Cour des Comptes assessment is broadly in line with the employment doctrine advocated by the Conseil d'Etat. " The consideration of trust issues and environmental challenges when implementing AI systems is in the initiation phase within MEFSIN. The next step is to manage these challenges. The compatibility of these different factors - trust, environment and frugality - is a rare opportunity for the adoption of robust public AI.

For the Cour des Comptes, AI systems at Bercy improve productivity in the majority of cases, but do not necessarily free up jobs. It regrets that AI is " very poorly addressed in the context of ministerial social dialogue, and project management reserves too limited a place for the quantitative and qualitative implications of AI systems for the work of the agents concerned".

The Ministry of the Economy and Finance "must anticipate with greater precision the consequences of the use of AI in terms of human resources, in order to control its effects on the nature of the work entrusted to agents, retain the necessary skills and distribute the productivity gains enabled by these technologies in a relevant way."

The Ministry of the Economy and Finance must also "guarantee the frugal use of AI. The concept of frugal AI argues that, over and above the ecological benefits, sobriety in terms of data, models and infrastructure promotes spending efficiency, the robustness of AI systems and the ability of organizations to retain full control over them. This approach assumes that the choice to use an AI system takes into account the costs associated with the system's entire lifecycle".

In particular, the Cour des Comptes recommends :

  • identify the ministerial body responsible for the strategic management of artificial intelligence and digital data;
  • identify the missions and processes for which AI is likely to bring significant gains in efficiency and productivity;
  • promote the measurement of the environmental impact of AI systems throughout their lifecycle, with a view to reducing it, among the departments of the economic and financial ministries;
  • promote a frugal approach to the implementation of AI systems among the departments of the economic and financial ministries.

Prioritize productivity issues?

In another report published in January 2025, the Cour des Comptes focuses above all on productivity gains. "The situation of public finances and the necessary trade-offs between digital projects argue in favor of public administrations prioritizing artificial intelligence projects that bring tangible gains in productivity. (.. ). The various types of AI that exist are capable of delivering productivity gains, and the example of the French Ministries of Finance offers encouraging prospects in this area. As part of this dynamic, the interministerial body must ensure that AI-based digital projects enable productivity issues to be prioritized".

Références :

Questioning goals to prioritize projects (CESE, 2025)

On January 14, 2025, the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) published its initial conclusions on the acceptability of AI in a 224-page opinion.

In a chapter more specifically devoted to AI deployment in public services, the EESC reviews a number of AI systems deployed in public services.

According to the CESE, integrating AI requires administrations to consider a series of questions: "Why is this modernization essential: to improve service quality? to cut costs? to reduce the number of public-sector employees? By questioning the aims of the transformation, this makes it possible to prioritize the most transformative projects, taking into account ethical criteria and the principles inherent in public service".

In conclusion, the EESC calls for AI systems to be deployed, but on two conditions:

  • "that they improve the quality of the public service and the working conditions of the employees who contribute to it";
  • "that the obligations of transparency, accountability and explicability are truly applied, when AI systems are deployed to enforce the law (for example, to calculate the amount of a tax), when they prove to be unavoidable (following the example of Parcoursup) or when they lead to individual decisions producing legal, economic or social effects that affect people".

In line with its previous opinions, the EESC recommends :

  • "systematically offer support and a human touch as an alternative to paperless services, as is the case with the France Service centers. enshrine in law the principle of a right to non-digital services, and guarantee equal access and freedom of choice for everyone.

Read more : CESE: Questioning purposes to prioritize AI projects in public services

Référence :

Article that might interest you

CESE : interroger les finalités et le respect du droit pour prioriser les projets d'IA dans les services publics

Pendant plusieurs mois, le Conseil économique, social et environnemental (CESE) a entrepris de « décrypter les conséquences du déploiement croissant de l’IA dans nos sociétés, depuis la prise en compte d’enjeux globaux – l’impact de l’IA sur l’exercice de nos droits fondamentaux et libertés individuelles, l’empreinte environnementale de la technologie et l’impératif d’autonomie stratégique européen ».Le CESE a livré, le 14 janvier, dans un avis, ses premières conclusions quant à l’acceptabilité de l’IA.L’IA, un objet politiquePour le CESE, « l’IA n’est pas neutre, elle s’inscrit dans une société où subsistent de nombreuses inégalités, la reflète et contribue à la façonner en retour, au risque d’amplifier les inégalités préexistantes. Les algorithmes, et donc les résultats qu’ils produisent, sont programmés par des concepteurs de modèles et de systèmes d’IA ». Aussi, le CESE considère-t-il l’IA « comme le résultat de choix politiques, réalisés d’abord par des êtres humains, faisant de cette technologie un objet politique ».Pour le CESE, tout déploiement d’une solution, système ou infrastructure d’IA doit faire l’objet d’une démarche et d’un cadre tenant compte des grands enjeux constitutifs de l’intérêt général :« L’utilité sociétale de l’IA doit être systématiquement prise en considération. L’IA ne peut se développer que si elle est au service des êtres humains et de l’intérêt général.Le développement d’un modèle, système ou infrastructure d’IA doit faire l’objet d’une analyse préalable et d’un contrôle démocratique exercé par les pouvoirs publics et les partenaires sociaux.Le choix et l’esprit critique des citoyens et citoyennes doivent pouvoir être exercés démocratiquement, en toutes circonstances, que ce soit pour l’usage d’un système d’IA ou le déploiement d’une infrastructure. Ce choix appelle également à la faculté de renoncer, même après avoir adopté ou utilisé une IA.L’évaluation à court, moyen et long terme doit être rendue possible, ce qui suppose de pouvoir garantir la transparence et l’explicabilité de la technologie. La non-réalisation des objectifs majeurs définis collectivement devrait pouvoir remettre en question le déploiement et permettre un retour en arrière. »Continuité, égalité et adaptabilitéTrois principes classiques du droit public ont une incidence directe sur le déploiement de l’IA dans les services publics :« Le principe de continuité, qui impose que le service public soit effectivement et toujours fourni, questionne à la fois la dépendance de l’État aux fournisseurs d’IA (notamment pour éviter toute forme de rupture dans la fourniture et la maintenance des logiciels) et les enjeux de souveraineté (sur le stockage et le traitement de données sensibles).Le principe d’égalité exige d’éviter toutes les formes de discriminations en garantissant l’accès de toutes et tous au service public, et oblige l’État à lutter contre l’illectronisme.le principe d’adaptabilité impose au service public de s’adapter aux progrès techniques mais aussi de répondre aux attentes de la société : ce principe peut être interprété comme une injonction à « mettre à jour le logiciel » de l’action publique et de s’interroger sur le bien-fondé des transformations envisagées. »Le service public à l’épreuve de l’IALe CESE passe en revue un certain nombre de systèmes d’IA déployés dans les services publics. Il porte, notamment, un jugement sévère sur l’intégration de l’IA au sein de la Direction générale des finances publiques (DGFIP) : l’exemple , à ses yeux, « d’un déploiement non concerté avec des objectifs d’intérêt général flous ».D’autres exemples témoignent au contraire que l’IA peut être mise au service d’une meilleure efficacité et efficience du service public. Le CESE mentionne, à titre d’exemple, le projet Albert, un outil mis au service des agents des espaces France Services, qui « permet de communiquer aux citoyens la bonne information sans demander aux agents d’être omniscients, dans un contexte où la réglementation est de plus en plus complexe, et évolue constamment ».Même rendue par une IA, une décision publique individuelle doit pouvoir être expliquéeA la suite de la Défenseure des droits, le CESE rappelle que « même rendue par une IA, une décision publique individuelle doit pouvoir être expliquée (…) Or, les modèles de langage ne permettent pas, aujourd’hui, de retracer la manière dont un résultat a été produit, les raisons pour lesquelles telle décision a été prise par l’algorithme ou de détecter des réponses fausses. L’IA générative fournit des réponses vraisemblables et possibles, selon des probabilités mathématiques, n’empêchant ni les erreurs, ni les hallucinations ».Interroger les finalités pour prioriser les projetsL’intégration de l’IA nécessite, selon le CESE, pour les administrations, de considérer une série de questions : « pourquoi cette modernisation est-elle essentielle : améliorer la qualité des services ? réduire les coûts ? réduire les effectifs d’agents publics ? En interrogeant les finalités de la transformation, cela permet de prioriser les projets les plus transformants en tenant compte des critères éthiques et des principes inhérents au service public ».Le CESE, en conclusion, appelle à déployer des systèmes d’IA, mais à deux conditions :« qu’ils améliorent la qualité du service public et les conditions de travail des agents qui y concourent ;que soient véritablement appliquées les obligations de transparence, de redevabilité et d’explicabilité, lorsque les systèmes d’IA sont déployés pour exécuter le droit (par exemple, pour calculer le montant d’un impôt), qu’ils s’avèrent incontournable (à l’instar de Parcoursup) ou qu’ils aboutissent à des décisions individuelles produisant des effets juridiques, économiques ou sociaux qui affectent les personnes ».Dans la continuité de ses avis antérieurs, le CESE recommande :« de proposer systématiquement un accompagnement et un accueil humain en alternative au service dématérialisé, comme cela se déploie au travers des espaces France Service ;d'inscrire dans la loi le principe d'un droit au non-numérique, et en garantissant l'égalité d'accès et la liberté de choix pour toutes et tous ».

  • Inclusion

  • Citizenship

  • Innovation

Sources

Linked articles

    [Feature] How are local authorities embracing artificial intelligence?

    ForewordSome twenty artificial intelligence (AI) projects run by local authorities had been identified by 2022, and over fifty by 2023. By the end of 2024, they will probably number in the hundreds. 36% of local authorities surveyed say they have already implemented and tested an artificial intelligence system (AIS), and 15% plan to do so in the next twelve months (15%). This acceleration is largely due to the multiplication of projects based on generative AI, notably for the deployment of conversational robots designed for both agents and users.Some local authorities are starting to involve citizens in the development of an AI doctrine or strategy.Anxious to make AI a subject for public debate before any widespread deployment, the Interconnectés with France Urbaine and Intercommunalités de France launched a call on September 18 for the organization of territorial AI consultations.On the occasion of the "Territorial frugal AI demonstrators" calls for projects, the Ministry of Ecological Transition, for its part, has undertaken to bring about the emergence of a Community of AI Actors in the territories. The breakthrough of generative AI in local authoritiesOn November 12, 2024, the Data Publica observatory published its third barometer on the use of data by territories, with a particular focus this year on the use of AI.The Barometer records a clear acceleration in the number of AI usage projects within French local authorities: more than one in two local authorities surveyed (51%) say they have either already implemented or tested an AIS (36%), or intend to do so in the next twelve months (15%). In 2022, the figure was 21%.The highest percentages are found in the regions (75% have already launched projects for 2024) and metropolitan areas (62%). For the first time, a significant number of municipalities with populations of 3,500 to 10,000 are involved (14% have launched projects, compared with none in the 2023 survey).Of the projects already underway in 2024, 29% concern administrative management and 11% customer relations. These projects alone account for 40% of the total, and could even represent 56% of new projects by 2025.So there are probably several hundred projects underway. "These figures can be explained very directly by the multiplication of projects involving the use of generative AI. In particular, there are a great many chatbots or "conversational robots" being imagined or tested by local authorities of all sizes, both internally (to respond to agents who need information about their careers, for example) and externally (to provide information to users)." In 2024, 52% of communities that used AI used generative AI."Easy to access, at least to carry out tests and take the first steps, generative AI is very logically the system that is making the most progress in 2024 in pioneering local authorities, with 52% in use. This is even truer for uses linked to administrative management: 74% of local authorities that use or intend to use AI for internal purposes say they will be using generative AI"."Modeling tools, which make forecasts and can be used to steer certain urban functions, are probably the tools that best meet the needs of local public players. These AIS, which have existed for many years, could spread more rapidly in the years to come ".Lack of skills, the main obstacle to AI implementationThe main obstacle to the use of AI in local authorities is the lack of skills, mentioned by 63% of local authorities and 67% of regions, but only 38% of metropolises. The Barometer also highlights a lack of confidence in AIS (47%). Although this figure is lower among local authorities that have taken the first step, it remains high (38%). Even more sensitive is the issue of access to the necessary (and quality) data, which is only ranked 6th among obstacles by all local authorities, but rises to 3rd place (38% among those who have undertaken the first tests). A community of AI players in the Territories for the ecological transitionAs part of its "AI and ecological transition" roadmap, the French Ministry of Ecological Transition has been supporting frugal AI-based solutions for territories since 2022.The " Démonstrateurs d'AI frugale des territoires " (DIAT) call for projects targeted AI projects capable of making predictions and recommendations to aid decision-making. " AI solutions must be frugal in terms of data and energy, and their own environmental impact must be measured, which must be thought out upstream of project construction ".12 projects were selected for this call for projects. The Banque des Territoires, operator of the call for projects, distinguishes three approaches to frugality among the selected projects:Minimize data collection, aiming for quality rather than quantity, and ensuring that only the data needed for the purpose is updated. This was notably the case with the IA.rbre project, which uses AI to help the Lyon metropolitan area detect "plantable" areas and use vegetation to create cooling zones or combat runoff phenomena.Limiting the number of sensors: frugality can also be achieved by exploiting data that are not originally environmental data. Through the Predict AI'r project run by the Paris-Ouest La Défense public institution, the consortium will be exploiting cell phone boundary data to deduce, using AI, users' travel patterns and their impact on air quality. A strategy that could make it possible to avoid multiplying the number of air sensors, while at the same time being applicable to any territory, in France or anywhere else in the world.Frugality can also be measured by the positive externalities that AI generates in organizations. In Saclay, for example, the Urba (IA) project supported by the agglomeration community promises to help local authorities in the Paris region revise their local urban planning schemes (PLU) by integrating all normative constraints in terms of environmental protection, whether regional or national.These calls for projects have enabled the Ministry of Ecological Transition to bring together a Community of AI Actors in Territories (CAIAT) made up of representatives from territories, competitiveness clusters, research institutions, startups and companies. Public consultations and citizen conventions on AISeveral local authorities have undertaken to involve citizens in the development of a doctrine or strategy around artificial intelligence.In October 2024, the City of Paris sought the opinion of its residents on their perceptions of artificial intelligence and its application on Parisian territory. This digital consultation concluded with a day dedicated to AI on January 25, 2025.Nantes Métropole had already adopted an AI doctrine, which stipulates that AI can only be used within a predefined framework, evolving through a "compass". While testing this doctrine throughout 2024, as part of internal experimentation with use cases applied to various professions and public policy needs, the metropolis organized a series of events around this "compass" throughout 2024. This "Nantes Débat de l'IA" process will culminate in the revision, during 2025, of the metropolitan charter, which will become the "Charte métropolitaine donnée et de l'IA".Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole, for its part, organized a Citizens' Convention from November 2023 to February 2024 on " What artificial intelligence to serve residents and the territory? ". "This participatory process and the Opinion issued by the Citizens' Convention have "strengthened the legitimacy and effectiveness of this approach, drawing on the work and thoughts of the residents involved". "Making AI a subject of public debate before any widespread deployment"On September 18, Les Interconnectés, France Urbaine and Intercommunalités de France launched a call for the organization of territorial AI consultations."For elected representatives, agents, users, citizens, economic players and academics, keen to understand and control the potential uses of these AI systems and their impacts, these regional consultations will enable them to debate the conditions for their deployment and to raise expectations, points of vigilance and proposals on a regional scale".In recent months, Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole, Rennes and Nantes Métropole have led the way in organizing consultations and debates with local staff and stakeholders on the issue of artificial intelligence (AI) and how local authorities should embrace it."What opportunities do these technologies open up? Under what conditions are these solutions deployed ? How can we guarantee ? What are the commitments in terms of energy sobriety? ? What guarantees can be given regarding the organization of people's work? ? What impact will this have on public services? Discussing these questions with users, employees, economic players and local civil society will be an opportunity to integrate the uniqueness of each territory and explore how social, environmental and ethical criteria - in a sense, responsible criteria - can be collectively defined and influence the strategic orientations of public players".The results of these initiatives will feed into the production of a manifesto that will affirm the political doctrine of AI at the service of local authorities.The first territories already committed to this approach: Nantes Métropole, Montpellier Méditerranée Métropole, Rennes Ville et Métropole, Toulouse Métropole, Métropole de Nice Côte d'Azur, Tours Métropole Val de Loire, Ville et métropole du Grand Nancy, Angers Loire Métropole, la Communauté de Communes de Lacq-Orthez, l'agglomération du SICOVAL, Bordeaux Métropole, Quimperlé Communauté, Paris Saclay, la Métropole Rouen Normandie, Communauté d'Agglomération de Béthune-Bruay Artois Lys Roman Intercommunalités de France: don't rush the widespread use of AGI in public services"The risks and limitations associated with the use of AI, such as frequent errors and biases in the data that AI compiles, raise concerns about the reliability and fairness of automated decisions. In addition, the consequences for the professions of public agents and the need for adequate training will have to be taken into account."Intercommunalités de France calls for the widespread use of AGI in public services not to be rushed:First, we need to learn from current experiments at both national and local levels;establish an ethical, legal and transparent framework for the use of AI, as well as guarantees to preserve the human link in public service.Intercommunalités de France proposes :rigorous upstream evaluation of the tool using generative AI, the implementation of regulatory methods and the promotion of a local public debate on AI ;to develop "chosen" rather than "submissive" AI, elected representatives are calling for concerted action between the State and local authorities to define an appropriate framework for use;the question of education in digital culture and the use of these new digital tools is a cause for concern, and local staff will need to be trained to cope with this technological evolution.

    • Innovation

    • Environment

    Published on 12/02/25

    [Feature] The impact of artificial intelligence on work and employment: a new challenge for social dialogue

    ForewordThe future of work is one of the five major themes of the Summitfor Action on Artificial Intelligence, to be held in Paris on February 10 and 11, 2025.The opening of ChatGPT to the public in November 2022 has rekindled long-standing concerns and debates about the potentially massive effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on employment. In March 2023, Goldman Sachs estimated that 300 million jobs worldwide could be destroyed by the irruption of this technology. In April 2024, consulting firm McKinsey estimated that by 2030, more than 30% of the hours worked in Europe and the USA could be automated by generative artificial intelligence (GAI).Meanwhile, the Artificial Intelligence Commission, in its March 2024 report, drew a more nuanced assessment of the effects of AI on employment in companies that adopt AI, as it replaces tasks, not jobs. " However, we must prepare for the disappearance of certain professions and anticipate the transformation of all others (...) The consequences of AI on the quality of life at work will depend on our collective choices and the quality of social dialogue with regard to it" concludedthe commission's experts.One thing is certain: " AI will transform the labor market", concludes the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) in an opinion issued ahead of the Summit. In particular, the CESE points to the speed at which AI is being deployed in companies in the absence of consultation. " AI needs to be questioned, thought out and integrated as early as possible, as it can be a lever for improving working conditions (management, work investment)" concludes the CESE at the end of a controversy analysis. "A balance needs to be struck between the functions performed, the conditions under which they are carried out and the meaning given to the work. It is a major challenge that companies, administrations and professional sectors must seize upon".The LaborIA action-research laboratory, set up by the French Ministry of Labor and lnria, for its part, is publishing groundbreaking results on human-machine interactions and the challenges of appropriating AI in the world of work.TheInstitut de Recherches Économiques et Sociales (IRES) andANACT (Agence nationale pour l'amélioration des conditions de travail), for their part, worked for 18 months with some 50 participants from the worlds of labor and management, business and government, to develop an " operational toolbox designed to foster technological social dialogue around AI". The uncertain effects of AI on employment and productivity"Work on quantifying the effects of AI on growth and employment is still exploratory," observed the French Treasury Department in April 2024, in a summary note: " The effects of AI measured on business productivity are modest for the moment. This can be explained by a still limited and uneven adoption within companies, stronger for large and digital companies (...) The theoretical effects of AI on employment are uncertain."According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 60% of jobs in advanced economies could present a high degree of exposure to AI: 27% of jobs would be highly complementary to it, and therefore most likely to benefit from AI, while it could substitute for 33% of jobs. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO) , in developed countries, the number of jobs with the potential to be enhanced by AI (13.4%) is much higher than those with the potential to be replaced by AI (5.1%). According to other estimates, focusing more specifically on the arrival of foundation models, while 80% of US workers could see at least 10% of their tasks replaced, only 19% could see this share rise to at least 50%, and would therefore face a significant risk of substitution. " However, these results must be interpreted with caution," stresses the Treasury Department (in the same summary note). "Indeed, the approach adopted takes into account neither the progression curve of AI, nor the evolution of its development costs for companies, whereas these two elements largely determine the long-term effects of a technology on employment".The Artificial Intelligence Commission, in March 2024, pointed to a rather positive effect of AI on employment in companies that adopt AI, "because AI replaces tasks, not jobs. In 19 out of 20 jobs, there are tasks that AI cannot perform. Jobs that can be directly replaced by AI would therefore represent only 5% of jobs in a country like France. On the other hand, the spread of AI will create jobs, not only in new professions, but also in old ones. All in all, some sectors or fields could experience net job losses, which need to be supported by the public authorities, but this does not imply that AI will have a negative effect on national employment in France."To draw up this generally reassuring assessment, the experts commissioned by the President of the Republic relied, in particular, on a survey carried out annually by Insee, which studies the effects of AI adoption by companies in France. According to this study, total employment in companies that have adopted AI is increasing more than in companies that have not, whereas these two groups were following a similar previous trend. The effect results mainly from the creation of new jobs, rather than a greater retention of existing jobs . "We also find that there are no differential effects on male versus female jobs: AI adoption has comparable effects for male and female employment. However, this effect of AI on total employment is not uniform from one trade to another. In particular, certain levels within the company or certain trades are likely to experience net job reductions. In fact, companies that adopt AI for administrative management or marketing will see their employment in "intermediate administrative and sales professions decline. " Opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence for companies and employees"The opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) for the world of work are numerous. For the moment, their scientific assessment remains limited", observe Flore Barcellini and Moustafa Zouinar (Centre de recherche sur le travail et le développement- CRTD, Cnam) and Nathalie Greenan (Centre d'études de l'emploi et du travail-CEET).The promises associated with AI are essentially based on three assumptions, observe the authors."On the work side, AI is supposed to increase human capabilities in carrying out certain tasks, help reduce errors by making tasks more reliable, or relieve humans of tasks perceived as 'non-value-added', particularly when they are repetitive or arduous."AI also opens up opportunities in terms of employment and production structure. "The development of the technology, its implementation and the product or service innovation it stimulates should generate new jobs. Some even see Industry 4.0 including AI as an opportunity to reindustrialize the European economy."Last but not least, AI would also provide a partial response to labor shortage issues in the context of an aging population. This vision is reflected in the 5.0 society project promoted by the Japanese government.These hypotheses, however, "have been the subject of few solid scientific evaluations in real-life contexts. Moreover, current AI is mainly "weak" AI, specialized in specific tasks, and not "strong" or "general" AI capable of fully replacing human intelligence in all fields".Beyond promises, major risksthe partial or total replacement of humans, implying the loss of their expertise and of what gives meaning to their work: " this manifests itself through the increasing automation of tasks, including those considered 'cognitive' and based on the experience and expertise of professionals (e.g. medical diagnostic tasks)".increasing subordination to algorithmic systems and to the constraints of work organization: "this can be seen in the development of algorithmic management or the rigidification of work organization rules linked to the introduction of AI".the mirage of collaboration between humans and AIS: " human-AIS collaboration refers to the idea that humans and AIS would not be substitutes, but could work in collaboration, enhancing each other's capabilities - AIS potentially enhancing human capabilities, and humans 'training' AIS with massive structured data, providing explanations of its actions and monitoring its proper functioning"."Critical analysis of recent empirical results obtained by research in economics and ergonomics invites us to question a form of "solutionism", which leads us to see technologies as "simple, off-the-shelf remedies" for complex problems such as health, performance or cost reduction issues" conclude the authors.ice.s.To encourage the emergence of " virtuous scenarios of AI use ", the authors point to two central elements:AIS uses must be part of sustainable forms of work " that combine organizational performance with the preservation of workers' health and the development of their skills throughout their working lives"." The introduction of AI should improve the quality of the knowledge produced and facilitate the exploration of new knowledge on the production process of companies and the work of professionals". Cautious appropriation of generative AI by businessesTo date, companies have opted for a cautious approach to generative AI, based on successive experiments.According to Bpifrance's latest business survey, based on feedback from nearly 5,000 companies, 31% of VSEs and SMEs were using generative artificial intelligence (GAI) by the end of 2024, a proportion that has doubled in one year. In particular, 8% use it regularly (3% at the end of 2023). Conversely, 69% do not use it at all, although 19% plan to do so in the near future. Roughly half of all managers are therefore reluctant to use EMI, although this proportion has fallen sharply over the past year (72% at the end of 2023). The main use of EMI identified, which has risen sharply over the past year, is the generation of written content, requested by 68% of VSE/SMEs using EMI (versus 54% at the end of 2023). The second most common use is the search, collection and analysis of data or information (57%). Around 1/3 use it for translation (36%) and the generation of various visual content (31%). VSE-SME managers who do not use AGI explain it above all by the lack of usage identification within their company (for 70% of them). A quarter cite a lack of expertise on the part of their employees or themselves, and 13% fear misuse of the tools (sharing of confidential company data, lack of verification of content produced by the applications, etc.).According to a study by the Adecco Group, published in spring 2024, based on a survey of 2,000 business leaders in nine countries including France, the majority feel overwhelmed by the AI revolution. 57% of executives doubt their own management team's ability to grasp the "risks and opportunities" associated with AI. Only 43% of this group said they had formal training programs in place to improve AI skills, while only 50% said they provided guidance to their teams on how to use it at work. Although 66% of executives recognize the impact of AI in their industry, only 11% feel they have made progress in digitizing their business in recent years (versus 9% of French executives and 14% of American executives). 66% of managers (64% in France) plan to recruit externally to cope with this revolution. This trend towards outsourcing skills is also confirmed for other professions such as data processing, for which 62% of managers plan to recruit experts from outside the company rather than favour internal recruitment. Only 34% of managers intend to train their staff in the use of AI. French executives stand out, however, by favoring the reorientation of their employees towards other positions in the event of AI impacting their jobs (51% of French executives versus 46% worldwide).Employees ahead of the game when it comes to generative AIThe Terra-Nova think tank's report on generative AI draws on the positive effects of generative AI already observed in the development of professional skills, vocational training and the enrichment of certain tasks, to identify the conditions under which this technology could become a lever for inclusion and improved quality of life at work (organization and working conditions, skills enhancement, career development). The report does, however, note a certain reluctance on the part of employers to embrace this technology. " There is talk of shadow GPT in companies, a phenomenon of invisible appropriation by employees, which shows an appetite or need far removed from the wait-and-see attitude or fear that employers often attribute to their teams. Nonetheless, this take-up of the tool is not always without risk for organizations ".A survey of over 14,000 workers in 14 countries in 2023 revealed that generative AI tools were penetrating the world of work without supervision. More than a quarter (28%) of the employees surveyed were using generative AI at work, and more than half without their employer's formal approval. Pointing to a lack of training, they noted that their employers' generative AI policies were either unclear or non-existent. It is therefore important, conclude the authors of the Terra-Nova report, to make generative AI " a subject of social dialogue within companies, by gradually making it a common subject of possible agreements such as the employment of seniors or disability, or by positioning it, when the time comes, as a subject of compulsory agreements such as teleworking or professional equality between men and women. In addition to supporting the career paths of employees exposed to the deployment of AI Gen, this social dialogue will also need to address the conditions for ethical management of the potential of this technology. At both company and branch level, it is also important that the social partners work together, within the framework of the Gestion des emplois et parcours professionnels (GEPP), to study the possibility of detecting trades that could be in decline or on the contrary in tension, that they work on the evolution of skills and that they consider the interest of setting up a joint observatory of the effects of AI on trades". CESE: "Co-constructing a new social dialogue is essential".Just a few days before the Summit for Action on Artificial Intelligence, as part of its global reflection on AI, the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) has published an opinion listing the conditions for AI to "bring both social and economic progress".This opinion is based on two observations:For employees, "fear of losing or changing their jobs, feeling employees are very wary of artificial intelligence (AI)".As far as employers are concerned, " the majority of companies are still in the AI learning phase, with empirical experiments and tests on certain tasks. The fact remains that AI is disrupting employment and work by inducing a complete change in organizations that can destabilize them.""Prospective studies on the effects of artificial intelligence have reached a number of limits ", observes the CESE: "there are major discrepancies in estimates of the number of jobs created or destroyed, the CSPs most affected, and expected productivity gains. It is essential to recognize that the decisions taken today in terms of employment, labor and training, as well as in terms of regulation, will determine the impact this technology will have for both employees and employers".The EESC used the controversy method to analyze the arguments for and against AI in work and employment. This method was applied to three major issuesWill AI increase inequality at work?Is AI a step forward for the organization of working conditions and occupational health?Will AI have a positive impact on employment?The CESE has identified the groups most specifically affected: administrative employees, who have a large proportion of tasks that can be automated; women, because they are numerous in exposed professions (accounting clerk, administrative agent, insurance executive); and young graduates, who generally acquire business skills by starting with repetitive tasks, which in future will be entrusted to AI.Social dialogue does little to address the arrival of AI in companiesSince 2017, just under one agreement in a thousand has made reference to AI. This situation is changing, however: between 2018 and 2023, the proportion of signed agreements that mention AI has increased 2.5-fold, particularly in the context of mandatory annual negotiations (NAO).For the CESE, the introduction of AI in companies must be carried out in a transparent way that reassures all stakeholders. Transformations in skills, jobs and work must be anticipated through constructive dialogue.The EESC's analysis of controversies highlights 9 points for attention, "themes necessary for a constructive dialogue between employees, their representatives and employers for the successful implementation of an artificial intelligence system (AIS)".the need for clarity in the company's approach at all levels: it is important to ask the right questions and to advocate transparency when introducing AI in a given department or business line, to anticipate the induced impacts, and to avoid the many biases amplified by the use of AI (gender, disability, skills...).consequences for job content: skills to be replaced, new skills to be acquired, training and support required;consequences for work organization and working hours ;monitoring the impact on physical and mental health (risk of intensification);conditions for preventing AI biases (gender, disability, age, and any type of stereotype), since AI works with data programmed by humans;the sharing of value and expected productivity gains (wages, working hours, etc.);data protection for employees and companies (avoid outsourced programming);environmental impact;access to this technology for businesses (especially SMEs). Dia-IA: an operational toolbox to foster technological social dialogue around AIFor 18 months, some 50 participants from the worlds of labor and management, business and government, worked on developing Dial-IA, "an operational toolbox designed to foster technological social dialogue around AI".This project, coordinated by the Institut de Recherches Économiques et Sociales (IRES) and co-financed by ANACT (Agence nationale pour l'amélioration des conditions de travail), involved four trade unions in particular: CFDT, CFE-CGC, FO Cadres and UGICT-CGT.The project resulted in a joint manifesto and a series of fact sheets designed to help stakeholders become acculturated:AI basics;Mapping the issues;AIS development situations.This toolbox reviews the various reasons why employees and employers are talking and negotiating about artificial intelligence.The toolbox also includes "levers to activate in order to implement a technological social dialogue approach", aimed primarily at employee representatives. This toolbox also offers "levers to activate in order to implement a technological social dialogue approach", aimed primarily at employee representatives.Read more : Workers and artificial intelligence: what kind of social dialogue? AI in the world of work: a survey and recommendations for "empowering AI"After two years of surveys, the LaborIA action-research laboratory, set up by the French Ministry of Labor and lnria, has published groundbreaking results on human-machine interactions and the challenges of appropriating AI in the world of work.After gathering the perceptions of stakeholders (decision-makers, designers, engineers and employees) in different types of organizations (private companies, government agencies, public institutions), the survey produces three types of results.The deployment of AIS in organizations is not the end point of innovation processes, following the phases of ideation, prototyping and experimentation. Human-machine interactions involve extended and uncertain learning periods. Workers must not only use AIS, but also engage in its maintenance, enhancement and supervision.Work that is often little or poorly recognized by organizations can lead to disengagement and the long-term failure of AI projectsThe failures and successes of AI projects also depend on conflicts of priority in the workplace. The survey reveals an opposition between a managerial logic of AI, promoted by designers/decision-makers, and a "logic of real work, specific to employees". The managerial logic sees AI as "a means of optimizing processes, reducing the risk of errors, improving performance and increasing work productivity".The deployment of AIS in organizations can have unexpected effects on work organization and management. Among these unexpected effects, a reconfiguration of professional roles and qualification frames of reference, a questioning of the role of middle managers, polarization of work, etc., are just a few examples. What's more, if AI changes work (and its organization), work also changes AI: "different modes of work organization - highly hierarchical/centralized or, on the contrary, leaving more room for autonomy - strongly influence the reception and appropriation of an AIS".At the end of this survey, LaborIA makes six recommendations.Read more: Deploying AI in the world of work: survey and recommendations for "empowering AI" The future of work on the agenda at the Artificial Intelligence Action SummitAs the "AI revolution" begins to unfold within organizations, it's important to understand its impact now, monitor its development, and encourage the sharing of knowledge and best practices.In this context, the AI Action Summit aims to facilitate international exchanges on the future of work and build on existing initiatives in order to:improve our understanding of AI systems and their uses, to better anticipate their impact on the world of work, training and education;promote AI deployments to serve productivity skills development, and well-being at work.The ambition of the members mobilized on the "Future of Work" theme, as part of the Summit, is to promote the socially responsible use of AI through sustained social dialogue. Beyond the context of the Summit to share this information, work has been launched on an initiative to build capacity to measure the impact of AI and algorithmic management in the workplace.The aim is also to encourage economic and social players to commit to sustainable and responsible AI at the Summit, by bringing together nearly 40 government representatives from five continents, international social partners, academics and researchers, experts, economic players and companies.Exchanges at the Summit should therefore provide relevant tools for players wishing to embark on the path of responsible AI in the field of work, in particular by mobilizing tools that avoid gender discrimination in access to employment, as well as the deployment of a human resources policy that promotes training and adaptation to the new needs generated by AI.

    • Innovation

    Published on 11/02/25

    [Feature] Why and how to make artificial intelligence frugal?

    ForewordArtificial Intelligence (AI) systems consume a lot of energy. To operate, they need large computing capacities to train on billions of data sets, which requires powerful servers.The rise of artificial intelligence has led to such an increase in energy consumption that data centers now use more energy than 92% of the world's countries. Beyond the burden this increase places on power grids, the development of AI also threatens climate objectives.The quest for a more frugal, more sustainable or more durable AI is guiding a great deal of research and initiatives.Unlike traditional artificial intelligence models, which are often data- and compute-intensive, and therefore require a lot of electricity and servers, and contribute to warming the environment and the climate, frugal artificial intelligence favors lighter, more efficient approaches.Frugal AI is now among the four areas to be explored in the second phase of the national artificial intelligence strategy (SNIA), which covers the period 2022-2025, particularly in its research component. The French Ministry of Ecological Transition, for its part, is working to structure a Community of AI Actors in Territories, through a "Call for projects - Frugal AI demonstrators serving the ecological transition in territories". This ministry has also initiated a reference framework to measure and reduce the environmental impact of AI.Several voices have been raised in recent months to make frugal AI a priority, in France, of the national artificial intelligence strategy:In its assessment of the first phase of the SNIA, the Cour des Comptes (French National Audit Office ) sees frugal AI as a "founding principle that should permeate all the research funded by the second phase". However, the challenges of energy and data frugality are " little taken into account in research work", "beyond a few promising initiatives".According to the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) in an opinion issued in September 2024, " there is a concern that funding is lacking for AIs designed directly to protect the environment (...) Research efforts have only marginally focused on frugal AI". The CESE recommends focusing public funding on AI with a direct environmental purpose and on frugal AI.The Office parlementaire d'évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (OPECST), for its part, makes the goal of frugal AI an "imperative".This theme of frugality is on the agenda of the Artificial Intelligence Summit to be held in Paris on February 11 and 12. A coalition for the environmental sustainability of AI could be formed at the end of the Summit. AI drives energy consumption through the roof"The conclusion of the Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (OPECST), in a comprehensive report (339 pages), is that the situation is clear."AI requires considerable energy inputs throughout its lifecycle. AI tools, especially generative AI tools that use large language models (LLMs), require a lot of computing power to train their algorithms, and therefore electricity. The AI giants' supercomputers call on tens of thousands of Nvidia chips, even before they are used, just to train the models. While it is estimated that datacenters alone consume less than 2% of the world's electrical energy today, this figure could rise to 4% by the end of the decade under the impact of AI, whose installations require 3 to 5 times more electricity than traditional datacenters."Most models have to be trained on hundreds or even thousands of graphics processing units( GPUs). These GPUs enable fast matrix calculations, but with proportionately high energy consumption and CO2 production. For example, training GPT-3 on GPUs required 190,000 kWh, or 85,000 kg of CO2 equivalents, equivalent to driving a car 700,000 kilometers, or a round trip from the Earth to the Moon.According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global electricity consumption in the AI and datacenter sectors could more than double by 2026 compared to 2022, reaching 1,050 terawatt-hours (TWh), equivalent to Japan's electricity consumption.This insatiable demand for energy could, according to Gartner, put energy suppliers under pressure and lead to shortages, limiting the growth of new data centers from 2026 onwards. Frugal AI finds its way into the national artificial intelligence strategyMathematician, and MP, Cédric Villani in his report on artificial intelligence (AI) questioned the ecological sustainability of AI back in 2018. "It's a question of thinking about a natively ecological AI and using it to better think about the impact of humans on their environment. This is a matter of urgency: by 2040, global storage space requirements, fundamentally correlated with the development of digital technology and AI, are likely to exceed global available silicon production (...) The greening of the AI value chain will necessarily involve open hardware and open software architectures which, in addition to being a confidence-building factor, can enable significant energy savings."The first phase (2018-2022) of the national artificial intelligence strategy (SNIA) aimed to equip France with competitive research capabilities. The first phase of the SNIA was funded to the tune of 1.5 billion euros. It notably enabled the creation and development of the network of interdisciplinary artificial intelligence institutes (3IA), the establishment of chairs of excellence and doctoral programs, as well as the Jean Zay supercomputer.In November 2021, a new "acceleration" phase of the SNIA was announced. Frugal AI is among the four priorities of this second phase, along with Embedded AI, Trusted AI, and Generative AI. This second phase, which covers the period 2022-2025 and is endowed with 2.2 billion euros, plans, in particular, to " support 10 frugal AI demonstrator or technological development projects".Frugal AI is also one of the priorities of the Artificial Intelligence Priority Research Program and Equipment (PEPR), co-piloted by CEA, CNRS and INRIA, with "the ambition of identifying software architectures, frugal learning methodologies for training on controlled databases, and advanced application optimization to rationalize energy consumption of machine learning-based AI systems as far as possible". " Frugal AI must permeate all research in a concrete way".In its first phase, the national AI strategy prioritized research. However, according to the Cour des Comptes, the challenges of energy and data frugality are " little taken into account in research work", "beyond a few promising initiatives". The use of algorithms seems to be the dimension most integrated into research work (see graph below). However, the Cour des Comptes sees frugal AI as a " founding principle a founding principle that should permeate all research funded by the second phase ". "Many efforts remain to be made in terms of frugal AI and trusted AI, both in terms of mobilizing researchers, allocating resources and the indispensable construction of a European normative framework," concludes the Cour des Comptes. "In order to ensure that frugal AI development objectives are met in the second phase, whatever the sector, it would be advisable to improve the measurement and monitoring of the ecological footprint of AI, and to build a framework of actions compatible with the control of the environmental footprint." "Concentrate funding on AI with a direct environmental purpose and on frugal AI".The French Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE), for its part, in an opinion issued in September 2024, observes that " AI is currently used mainly in areas such as finance, targeted marketing and now industry, and not to train and operate optimization algorithms that benefit the environment (...) Under these conditions, it is to be feared that funding will be lacking for AI designed directly to protect the environment".Six years after the Villani report, we have to admit that research efforts have only marginally focused on "frugal AI". While the Artificial Intelligence and Ecological Transition Roadmappublished in 2021 (by the French Ministry of Ecological Transition) includes a "frugality" section, there are still too few projects underway".According to the CESE, frugal AI could be a priority focus of the fourth Future Investment Program 2021-2026 and the France 2030 investment plan.The EESC recommends focusing public funding on AI with a direct environmental purpose and on frugal AI.A systematic assessment of the environmental footprint of AIs will have to be carried out, requiring the companies concerned to be transparent about resource consumption, and building an evaluation benchmark. Such an AI "Ecoscore" will enable users, citizens and companies alike, to choose the most sober AIs (recommendation no. 5).At the same time, engineers will have to become more involved in the eco-design of equipment, particularly terminals, the renewal of which is accelerated by AI (recommendation no. 6), and users can be made more aware of their responsibilities through information campaigns on the environmental footprint of AI and the possibility, currently non-existent, of disconnecting AI uses and data collection on their applications (recommendation no. 7).Last but not least, measures are immediately applicable to data centers. For data center projects, the public authorities must ensure compliance with the objective of zero net artificialisation, in particular by using sites that have already been artificialised (recommendation no. 8), the European sustainability rating system for these centers must be taken into account, and the principle of recovering waste heat must be integrated (recommendation no. 9). 12 frugal AI demonstrators in the regionsAs part of its "AI and ecological transition" roadmap, the French Ministry of Ecological Transition has been supporting frugal AI-based solutions for territories since 2022.The " Démonstrateurs d'AI frugale des territoires" (DIAT) call for projects targeted AI projects capable of making predictions and recommendations to aid decision-making. " AI solutions must be frugal in terms of data and energy, and their own environmental impact must be measured, which must be thought out upstream of project construction ".12 projects were selected for this call for projects. The Banque ds territoires, operator of the call for projects, has identified three approaches to frugality among the selected projects:Minimize data collection, aiming for quality rather than quantity, and ensuring that only the data needed for the purpose is updated". This was notably the case for the IA.rbre project, which uses AI to help the Lyon metropolitan area detect "plantable" areas and use vegetation to create cooling zones or combat runoff phenomena.Limiting the number of sensors: frugality can also be achieved by exploiting data that are not originally environmental data. Through the Predict AI'r project run by the Paris-Ouest La Défense public establishment, the consortium will exploit cell phone boundary data to deduce, using AI, users' travel patterns and their impact on air quality. A strategy that could make it possible to avoid multiplying the number of air sensors, while at the same time being applicable to any territory, in France and worldwide.Frugality can also be measured by the positive externalities that AI generates in organizations. In Saclay, for example, the Urba (IA) project supported by the agglomeration community promises to help local authorities in the Paris region revise their local urban planning schemes (PLU) by integrating all normative constraints in terms of environmental protection, whether regional or national.These calls for projects are enabling the Ministry of Ecological Transition to bring together a Community of AI Actors in Territories (CAIAT) made up of representatives of territories, competitiveness clusters, research institutions, VSEs/startups/SMEs and companies. A benchmark for measuring and reducing the environmental impact of AIThe Ecolab of the Commissariat Général au Développement Durable (CGDD) and the Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) have published a methodology for assessing the effect of an AI service on the environment. In addition to providing an initial operational reference framework for quantifying its impact, the document contains a set of best practices to adopt in moving towards frugal AI.The method has been developed using a global approach, i.e. it covers all the digital resources mobilized to deliver the service. Starting with data centers (servers, storage bays, network equipment), which host and process digital data. Next come the network infrastructures that ensure data transmission to users. And finally, the terminals (smartphones, computers, televisions, etc.) that operate, receive and consult content.The entire lifecycle of a system is taken into account, from design to development to commissioning. This implies a reflection on the very necessity of using AI versus less resource-intensive solutions. AI must not become a systematic response to every need.Frugality also means minimizing the material and energy resources mobilized to create the AI system. This includes rationalizing AI models, reducing the volume of data used to train them, and optimizing the infrastructures they mobilize, such as data centers. The compression of algorithms and the use of open source data are also encouraged to reduce their carbon footprint.Throughout the AI lifecycle, the standard then requires measurement of the direct impact of the AI (energy consumed, CO2 emitted, resources consumed) as well as its indirect effects, such as the rebound effect, where an improvement in efficiency can lead to an increase in consumption.Finally, clear governance must be put in place to ensure that frugality principles are integrated into every stage of an AI project. AI suppliers and producers must communicate transparently on the actions implemented to limit impacts, providing precise assessments and clear methodologies.

    • Data

    • Innovation

    • Environment

    Published on 07/01/25

[Feature] Artificial intelligence and public services: what doctrine of use?

Foreword

The third phase of the national strategy for artificial intelligence (AI), released a few days before the Summit, includes a major section devoted to the implementation of AI for public policy.

"AI will become a priority focus translated into ministerial roadmaps to be presented no later than June 2025. (...) The Ministry of Public Action, Civil Service and Simplification will coordinate interministerial actions to deploy AI in the public sector. (...) AI will be one of the priorities of the State Reform Fund".

" A plan to deploy generative AI tools will enable every agent to benefit from AI assistants capable of saving them time and efficiency in their daily administrative tasks. (...) This trusted AI will always have a public agent in the loop (...) The tight steering of these deployments will enable their performance to be assessed in terms of time savings, costs and efficiency. On the basis of this evaluation and feedback, proven use cases will be deployed on a larger scale.

In 2022, the Conseil d'État had laid the foundations for an AI administrative doctrine, organized around seven principles of trusted public AI.

A few months later, ChatGPT burst onto the scene. The rise of generative AI is reshuffling the deck.

As artificial intelligence systems (AIS) make their appearance in many areas of public action, it's time for feedback.

The Conseil économique, social et environnemental (CESE), the Défenseure des droits, the Cour des comptes, the Commission de l'IA and the Direction générale de l'administration et de la fonction publique (DGAFP) all delivered their initial analyses in 2024 and early 2025: they all advocate strengthening interministerial management and clarifying a doctrine for the use of AI in public services.

  • By emphasizing the "empowering" dimension of AI for agents, the AI Commission thus sketches out, in hollow, a doctrine of digital transformation that would be deployed "from below" : "The arrival of AI could be an opportunity to give public agents the ability to transform their own work, rather than undergoing transformation from above".
  • The Défenseure des droits, responsible for defending the rights and freedoms of users of public services, is examining the growing use of algorithms or artificial intelligence (AI) systems in French public services, particularly in central government. Despite the "efficiency gains in decision-making ", the Défenseure des droits warns against " infringements of users' fundamental rights", and calls for human intervention to guarantee respect for users' rights.
  • In June 2024, the DGAFP published a strategy for the use of artificial intelligence in human resources management (HRM) in the state civil service. It highlights use cases and issues guiding principles.
  • While the Cour des Comptes recommends prioritizing "the missions and processes for which AI is likely to deliver significant gains in efficiency and productivity", it also outlines the main lines of a "robust public AI", based on sobriety in terms of data, models and infrastructures, and the ability of organizations to retain full control over them.
  • The CESE calls on administrations to question the purposes of AI systems. To this end, it formulates two conditions for their deployment: "that they improve the quality of public service and the working conditions of the agents who contribute to it", and "that the obligations of transparency, accountability and explicability are genuinely applied, when AI systems are deployed to enforce the law, or when they lead to individual decisions producing legal, economic or social effects that affect individuals".

    • Référence :

Seven principles for "trusted public artificial intelligence" (Conseil d'État, 2022)

"In August 2022, the Conseil d'État published a 360-page study on the contribution of AI to public action. The Conseil d'Etat therefore recommended that public authorities immediately define a doctrine for the use of AI: an administrative doctrine, which would make it possible to "control risks of all kinds (individual and collective)" and "guarantee the public utility of AI systems in all circumstances".

The high court proposed to base the use of AI in the public sphere on seven principles:

  • Human primacy. "Public AIS are conceived as tools at the service of human beings, which presupposes that they serve a general interest purpose and that the interference in fundamental rights and freedoms that results from their implementation is not disproportionate to the benefits expected from them".
  • Performance. "Deterioration in the quality of a service due to automation is one of the most destructive factors for confidence in digital tools, particularly when, in the case of public services, users have no option but to turn to a competitor. Public authorities must therefore identify system performance indicators (accuracy, technical robustness, response time, etc.), and define the acceptable level of performance, taking into account the consequences of the error, while ensuring that the quality of the service provided is not adversely affected.
  • Equity and non-discrimination. "AIS designers must choose, from among the various conceptions of fairness, the one that will guide the operation of the systems, and formalize this choice, while respecting the principle of equality. They must also take care to prevent unintentional discrimination, a particularly important issue for AIS decision support systems based on machine learning".
  • Transparency. "This principle includes, at the very least, the right of access to the system's documentation, a requirement of loyalty consisting in informing people of the use of an AIS with regard to them, the auditability of the system by the competent authorities, and the guarantee of explicability. The technical complexity of certain AIS, in particular those based on deep learning, and the difficulty or inability to formalize the reasoning that led to the result produced, run the risk of accentuating the feeling of mistrust if the people on whom this result has an impact cannot obtain, in simple language, an explanation of the main reasons behind the decision or recommendation formulated by the system".
  • Safety (cybersecurity). " Any AIS must integrate the issue of safety, i.e. preventing computer attacks and resolving their consequences."
  • Environmental sustainability. "The environmental impact of AIS must be taken into account in the strategy of public AI in general, around a principle of global neutrality of AI, as in the design of each system, by comparing the extra performance enabled by higher computing power with its ecological footprint."
  • Strategic autonomy. "Since AIS increasingly contribute to the essential functions of public power, they must be designed in such a way as to guarantee the nation's autonomy. While digital autarky would be an illusory and counter-productive objective, France must equip itself with the necessary resources, in terms of skills, infrastructure and data research structures, to reduce and choose its dependencies".

However, administrations have not waited for such a doctrine to be put into practice, here and there, with varying degrees of maturity. "Above all, we note a very great heterogeneity in the maturity of administrations, the degree of progress of reflections and projects, and the scale of investments devoted to them", writes the Council. Pleading for a "proactive and lucid " strategy for the deployment of public AI, the high court invited the State to strike a balance between the development of AI for internal use and AI that directly benefits citizens, between uses dedicated to "service" and uses dedicated to "control".

Référence :

Giving public employees the ability to transform their own work, rather than having it transformed from above (AI Commission, 2024).

The AI Commission, created in 2023, devotes a chapter of the report it submitted to the Prime Minister in March 2024, to the implementation of AI in public services. In it, she draws up a harsh assessment of the digitization of public services. " Too often, digital transformation has stopped at the dematerialization of procedures, without transforming in depth the flow of information, or the processing of requests. Promises to personalize (and therefore humanize) public services, to speed up processing and to simplify the work of agents have not been kept.

For the Commission, AI is first and foremost " an opportunity to relaunch the digital transformation of public services".

"Through its ease of use, generative AI offers the opportunity to unleash agents' creativity by enabling them to experiment with technology at their own level, without always needing a specific system". The Commission therefore recommends " encouraging public servants to seize these tools, all the more so when they are free for occasional use (...) The public service would benefit from equipping public servants with configurable AI so that they can deploy them themselves, whether these are off-the-shelf solutions or specific to the public service If public servants appropriate AI, uses will abound and will make it possible to identify more quickly where AI has value".

By emphasizing the "empowering" dimension of AI for civil servants, the AI Commission thus sketches out a doctrine of digital transformation that would be deployed from below : "The arrival of AI could be an opportunity to give civil servants the ability to transform their own work, rather than having it transformed from above".

Two pitfalls: the "big AI project" and the "all ChatGPT" approach

She warns, in passing, against two pitfalls to be avoided: " On the one hand, the 'big AI project', designed to do everything, replace everything, developed far from agents, users and the reality of public service. On the other hand, the "all ChatGPT", in which a commercial and foreign universal conversational robot would become the only use of AI in public service".

Citizens themselves could be called upon to contribute to AI-enabled public services, " whether to define how they operate or to participate in their construction. Their involvement is crucial if AI-enabled transformation of public services is to avoid reinforcing bureaucratic, inexplicable and distant centralization". The Commission mentions the " alignment assemblies " convened in Taiwan to define rules for AI deployment and behavior in the public service.

To give wide access to generative AI services and avoid double investment, the Commission recommends that the capacity for technical steering and execution in public services be strengthened. "At inter-ministerial level, a real technology directorate should be able to provide not only doctrine, but also quality infrastructures (hosting, computing power, software factory, digital identity etc. ), expertise and transformation budgets. At a time when the State is seeking to reinternalize skills and circulate them between ministries, it needs to strengthen its ability to produce quality digital products".

Off-the-shelf AI solutions?

The Commission, incidentally, sets the terms for a debate on the use of off-the-shelf AI solutions.

"From 2024, public services will have to decide whether to use off-the-shelf AI solutions, enter into partnerships with companies, or redevelop their own tools. (...) Off-the-shelf solutions will have the advantage of performance and simplicity, as they are immediately available, and can even be integrated directly into agents' tools (office suite, search engine). Some ministries, for example, have banned the use of IT development tools such as Github's Copilot or GPT-4.

"However, the Commission reminds us that off-the-shelf solutions have their limits: "either because they don't fit in with existing tools, or because they aren't adapted to certain sensitive uses. It would be tricky to ask ChatGPT to summarize a memo to a minister, for example. But it would be absurd for every ministry and local authority to redevelop or buy an AI capable of summarizing a memo without leaking the data.

Référence :

Human intervention as a guarantee of user rights (Défenseure des droits, 2024)

In a report published on November 13, 2024, the Défenseure des droits, responsible for defending the rights and freedoms of users of public services, examines the growing use of algorithms or AI systems in French public services, particularly in central government.

"Despite gains in decision-making efficiency ", the Défenseure des droits warns against " infringements of users' fundamental rights".

In this report, the Human Rights Defender examines the effectiveness of two guarantees that are particularly important in ensuring respect for these rights: human intervention in decision-making and control of systems, and the requirement for transparency towards users.

Although user complaints are still few and far between, the Défenseure des droits has identified a"systematic" problem of trust between users and the administration. In this respect, she points out that the transparency of public action must be seen as a "prerequisite for combating possible errors, abuses and discrimination (...) However, information obligations are sometimes little or poorly respected due to the opacity of procedures carried out by or with the help of algorithms".

When an administrative decision is said to be " partially automated ", a public official must take a positive, concrete and significant action based on or alongside the result generated by the algorithm, in the decision-making process. The Défenseure des droits notes, particularly on the basis of the complaints it receives, that this intervention is sometimes non-existent and sometimes inconsistent or biased, when the people involved in individual decision-making tend to endorse the results produced by the system without questioning them.

In view of these limitations, and their impact on the rights of public service users, the Human Rights Defender recommends the introduction of mandatory criteria and operating procedures to define more precisely the nature of the human intervention required.

Read more :The Défenseure des droits calls for vigilance regarding the use of algorithms in public services

Référence :

Article that might interest you

La Défenseure des droits appelle à la vigilance sur l’usage des algorithmes dans les services publics

Attribution de prestations sociales, calcul d’impôts, accès à l’enseignement supérieur : de plus de plus de démarches administratives sont désormais partiellement ou complètement automatisées. Que reste-t-il de l’intervention humaine dans la prise de décision ? Quels sont les effets de ces nouvelles pratiques sur les droits des usagers ?Dans un rapport publié le 13 novembre 2024, la Défenseure des droits, en charge de la défense des droits et libertés des usagers des services publics, étudie l’usage croissant des algorithmes ou systèmes d’intelligence artificielle (IA) dans les services publics français, et notamment dans l’administration centrale.« Malgré un gain d’efficacité dans la prise de décisions », la Défenseure des droits met en garde contre « les atteintes aux droits fondamentaux des usagers ».Une algorithmisation massive des services publicsDans ce rapport, la Défenseure des droits examine l’effectivité de deux garanties particulièrement importantes pour assurer le respect de ces droits : l’intervention humaine dans la prise de décision et la maîtrise des systèmes, et l’exigence de transparence à l’égard des usagers.Afin d’automatiser, d’améliorer ou d’accélérer certaines procédures, l’administration a recours de manière croissante à des algorithmes ou à des systèmes d’IA. Les décisions administratives individuelles, prises par les administrations, peuvent ainsi être partiellement automatisées - si une intervention humaine est prévue - ou entièrement automatisées.Pour la Défenseure des droits, cette évolution est à la fois porteuse de progrès et de risques pour les droits fondamentaux des usagers. Du côté des avantages, dans le cadre d'une appropriation et utilisation des algorithmes et systèmes d’IA qui soit responsable et conforme au droit, ces évolutions peuvent permettre un processus décisionnel plus efficace et mieux informé par le traitement d’une multitude de données, ou encore de contribuer à limiter l’arbitraire et permettre d’atteindre une égalité de traitement, les agents humains n’étant pas toujours neutres et leurs décisions pouvant s’avérer discriminatoires. En revanche, les systèmes algorithmiques font aussi peser des risques majeurs sur les droits et libertés, comme l’Institution l’a souligné dans deux rapports consacrés, l’un en 2020, au risque d’automatisation des discriminations induit par les algorithmes et, l’autre en 2021, à l’impératif respect des droits fondamentaux dans l’utilisation des technologies biométriques.Décisions « partiellement automatisées » : l’intervention humaine comme garantie du respect des droits des usagersLorsqu’une décision administrative est dite « partiellement automatisée », un agent public doit effectuer une action positive, concrète et significative à partir ou à côté du résultat généré par l’algorithme, dans la prise de décision.La Défenseure des droits relève, notamment sur le fondement des réclamations qu’elle reçoit, que cette intervention se révèle parfois inexistante – comme c’est le cas pour la procédure d’affectation en lycée Affelnet, ou encore de Parcoursup – et parfois inconsistante ou biaisée, lorsque les personnes qui interviennent dans la prise de décision individuelle ont tendance à avaliser les résultats produits par le système sans les questionner.Face à ces limites, et à leurs effets sur les droits des usagers des services publics, la Défenseure des droits recommande d’édicter des critères et des modes opératoires obligatoires pour qualifier plus précisément la nature de l’intervention humaine requise.Les risques d'atteintes aux droits fondamentauxBien que les réclamations d'usagers soient encore peu nombreuses, la Défenseure des droits identifie une problématique "systématique" de confiance entre les usagers et l'administration. Elle rappelle, à ce titre, que la transparence de l'action publique doit être envisagée comme un « prérequis pour lutter contre d'éventuels erreurs, abus et discriminations", dans l'esprit de l'article 15 de la Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen. Or, les obligations d'information sont parfois peu ou mal respectées en raison de l'opacité des procédures réalisées par ou à l'aide d'algorithmes. Le rapport pointe également le risque de discrimination automatisée. Si, en France, il existe une interdiction de prendre des décisions administratives individuelles sur le fondement de données sensibles (comme la situation économique, le sexe, le lieu de résidence...), le règlement général sur la protection des données (RGPD) reste moins exhaustif et contraignant en la matière. Des exemples, comme celui de l'outil développé par l'agence nationale pour l'emploi en Autriche en 2019, montrent que ce risque de discrimination automatisée a pu se concrétiser, y compris dans le secteur public.Le devoir de transparenceQuand il a pris une décision fondée sur un traitement algorithmique, un service public doit fournir un certain nombre d’informations à l’usager concerné mais également au public. Cette exigence légale de transparence qui découle d’un principe constitutionnel, doit permettre de comprendre certaines décisions pour pouvoir en débattre, voire les contester utilement.Quelles recommandations ?Face aux risques d'atteintes aux droits fondamentaux des usagers, la Défenseure des droits énumère plusieurs recommandations :préciser le cadre (critères et mode opératoire) de l’intervention humaine d’un fonctionnaire lorsqu’une décision des services publics est prise avec l’appui de systèmes algorithmiques ou d’IA ; s'assurer de la disponibilité des compétences en interne et de la bonne maîtrise du fonctionnement de ces systèmes par les agents ; introduire des sanctions en cas de non-respect du droit à l’information des usagers ;consacrer un droit à l’explication des décisions administratives individuelles partiellement ou entièrement automatisées ; soutenir la recherche pour comprendre les effets de ces systèmes et alimenter le débat public ; encourager l’engagement d’associations sur ce sujet, questionner les objectifs et réorienter le système en tenant compte des remontées des usagers. 

  • Data

  • Inclusion

  • Citizenship

Civil service: Using AI to support rather than replace human work (DGAFP, 2024)

In June 2024, the Direction Générale de l'Administration et de la Fonction Publique (DGAFP) published a strategy for the use of artificial intelligence in human resources management (HRM) in the state civil service.

"Although the least skilled occupations are currently the most exposed to automation, generative AI can improve the performance of less skilled workers, while advances in generative AI can increase the exposure of highly skilled occupations."

The DGFAP has identified 26 cases of use of AI for HRM in the state civil service:

  • five use cases deemed particularly "desirable": analysis of internal survey results; contextual training recommendations; personalized learning; drafting job descriptions; identification of emerging skills).
  • four others considered "no-no's": early detection of mental health problems; analysis of relationships between colleagues; automated video interviews with candidates; recognition and reward systems.

DGFAP concludes with three guiding principles:

  • " Human control: consultation and autonomy (setting the framework for use in collaboration with employee representatives; declaration of AI use by agents; freedom of agents to use AI tools or their results) ;
  • Protection of the agent and the administration Data protection: legal and transparent use of (private and sensitive) data; robustness and security of AI;
  • Ethics : transparency, justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, non-discrimination."

    • Référence :

Productivity, trust, frugality: pillars of a robust public AI (Cour des Comptes, 2024)

Since 2015, Bercy has deployed, on an experimental basis, no fewer than 35 artificial intelligence programs (taxation, customs controls, anti-money laundering, public statistics, consumer law...). On October 22, 2024, the Cour des Comptes published its observations on the implementation of AI at the Ministry of the Economy and Finance.

The Cour des Comptes assessment is broadly in line with the employment doctrine advocated by the Conseil d'Etat. " The consideration of trust issues and environmental challenges when implementing AI systems is in the initiation phase within MEFSIN. The next step is to manage these challenges. The compatibility of these different factors - trust, environment and frugality - is a rare opportunity for the adoption of robust public AI.

For the Cour des Comptes, AI systems at Bercy improve productivity in the majority of cases, but do not necessarily free up jobs. It regrets that AI is " very poorly addressed in the context of ministerial social dialogue, and project management reserves too limited a place for the quantitative and qualitative implications of AI systems for the work of the agents concerned".

The Ministry of the Economy and Finance "must anticipate with greater precision the consequences of the use of AI in terms of human resources, in order to control its effects on the nature of the work entrusted to agents, retain the necessary skills and distribute the productivity gains enabled by these technologies in a relevant way."

The Ministry of the Economy and Finance must also "guarantee the frugal use of AI. The concept of frugal AI argues that, over and above the ecological benefits, sobriety in terms of data, models and infrastructure promotes spending efficiency, the robustness of AI systems and the ability of organizations to retain full control over them. This approach assumes that the choice to use an AI system takes into account the costs associated with the system's entire lifecycle".

In particular, the Cour des Comptes recommends :

  • identify the ministerial body responsible for the strategic management of artificial intelligence and digital data;
  • identify the missions and processes for which AI is likely to bring significant gains in efficiency and productivity;
  • promote the measurement of the environmental impact of AI systems throughout their lifecycle, with a view to reducing it, among the departments of the economic and financial ministries;
  • promote a frugal approach to the implementation of AI systems among the departments of the economic and financial ministries.

Prioritize productivity issues?

In another report published in January 2025, the Cour des Comptes focuses above all on productivity gains. "The situation of public finances and the necessary trade-offs between digital projects argue in favor of public administrations prioritizing artificial intelligence projects that bring tangible gains in productivity. (.. ). The various types of AI that exist are capable of delivering productivity gains, and the example of the French Ministries of Finance offers encouraging prospects in this area. As part of this dynamic, the interministerial body must ensure that AI-based digital projects enable productivity issues to be prioritized".

Références :

Questioning goals to prioritize projects (CESE, 2025)

On January 14, 2025, the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE) published its initial conclusions on the acceptability of AI in a 224-page opinion.

In a chapter more specifically devoted to AI deployment in public services, the EESC reviews a number of AI systems deployed in public services.

According to the CESE, integrating AI requires administrations to consider a series of questions: "Why is this modernization essential: to improve service quality? to cut costs? to reduce the number of public-sector employees? By questioning the aims of the transformation, this makes it possible to prioritize the most transformative projects, taking into account ethical criteria and the principles inherent in public service".

In conclusion, the EESC calls for AI systems to be deployed, but on two conditions:

  • "that they improve the quality of the public service and the working conditions of the employees who contribute to it";
  • "that the obligations of transparency, accountability and explicability are truly applied, when AI systems are deployed to enforce the law (for example, to calculate the amount of a tax), when they prove to be unavoidable (following the example of Parcoursup) or when they lead to individual decisions producing legal, economic or social effects that affect people".

In line with its previous opinions, the EESC recommends :

  • "systematically offer support and a human touch as an alternative to paperless services, as is the case with the France Service centers. enshrine in law the principle of a right to non-digital services, and guarantee equal access and freedom of choice for everyone.

Read more : CESE: Questioning purposes to prioritize AI projects in public services

Référence :

Article that might interest you

CESE : interroger les finalités et le respect du droit pour prioriser les projets d'IA dans les services publics

Pendant plusieurs mois, le Conseil économique, social et environnemental (CESE) a entrepris de « décrypter les conséquences du déploiement croissant de l’IA dans nos sociétés, depuis la prise en compte d’enjeux globaux – l’impact de l’IA sur l’exercice de nos droits fondamentaux et libertés individuelles, l’empreinte environnementale de la technologie et l’impératif d’autonomie stratégique européen ».Le CESE a livré, le 14 janvier, dans un avis, ses premières conclusions quant à l’acceptabilité de l’IA.L’IA, un objet politiquePour le CESE, « l’IA n’est pas neutre, elle s’inscrit dans une société où subsistent de nombreuses inégalités, la reflète et contribue à la façonner en retour, au risque d’amplifier les inégalités préexistantes. Les algorithmes, et donc les résultats qu’ils produisent, sont programmés par des concepteurs de modèles et de systèmes d’IA ». Aussi, le CESE considère-t-il l’IA « comme le résultat de choix politiques, réalisés d’abord par des êtres humains, faisant de cette technologie un objet politique ».Pour le CESE, tout déploiement d’une solution, système ou infrastructure d’IA doit faire l’objet d’une démarche et d’un cadre tenant compte des grands enjeux constitutifs de l’intérêt général :« L’utilité sociétale de l’IA doit être systématiquement prise en considération. L’IA ne peut se développer que si elle est au service des êtres humains et de l’intérêt général.Le développement d’un modèle, système ou infrastructure d’IA doit faire l’objet d’une analyse préalable et d’un contrôle démocratique exercé par les pouvoirs publics et les partenaires sociaux.Le choix et l’esprit critique des citoyens et citoyennes doivent pouvoir être exercés démocratiquement, en toutes circonstances, que ce soit pour l’usage d’un système d’IA ou le déploiement d’une infrastructure. Ce choix appelle également à la faculté de renoncer, même après avoir adopté ou utilisé une IA.L’évaluation à court, moyen et long terme doit être rendue possible, ce qui suppose de pouvoir garantir la transparence et l’explicabilité de la technologie. La non-réalisation des objectifs majeurs définis collectivement devrait pouvoir remettre en question le déploiement et permettre un retour en arrière. »Continuité, égalité et adaptabilitéTrois principes classiques du droit public ont une incidence directe sur le déploiement de l’IA dans les services publics :« Le principe de continuité, qui impose que le service public soit effectivement et toujours fourni, questionne à la fois la dépendance de l’État aux fournisseurs d’IA (notamment pour éviter toute forme de rupture dans la fourniture et la maintenance des logiciels) et les enjeux de souveraineté (sur le stockage et le traitement de données sensibles).Le principe d’égalité exige d’éviter toutes les formes de discriminations en garantissant l’accès de toutes et tous au service public, et oblige l’État à lutter contre l’illectronisme.le principe d’adaptabilité impose au service public de s’adapter aux progrès techniques mais aussi de répondre aux attentes de la société : ce principe peut être interprété comme une injonction à « mettre à jour le logiciel » de l’action publique et de s’interroger sur le bien-fondé des transformations envisagées. »Le service public à l’épreuve de l’IALe CESE passe en revue un certain nombre de systèmes d’IA déployés dans les services publics. Il porte, notamment, un jugement sévère sur l’intégration de l’IA au sein de la Direction générale des finances publiques (DGFIP) : l’exemple , à ses yeux, « d’un déploiement non concerté avec des objectifs d’intérêt général flous ».D’autres exemples témoignent au contraire que l’IA peut être mise au service d’une meilleure efficacité et efficience du service public. Le CESE mentionne, à titre d’exemple, le projet Albert, un outil mis au service des agents des espaces France Services, qui « permet de communiquer aux citoyens la bonne information sans demander aux agents d’être omniscients, dans un contexte où la réglementation est de plus en plus complexe, et évolue constamment ».Même rendue par une IA, une décision publique individuelle doit pouvoir être expliquéeA la suite de la Défenseure des droits, le CESE rappelle que « même rendue par une IA, une décision publique individuelle doit pouvoir être expliquée (…) Or, les modèles de langage ne permettent pas, aujourd’hui, de retracer la manière dont un résultat a été produit, les raisons pour lesquelles telle décision a été prise par l’algorithme ou de détecter des réponses fausses. L’IA générative fournit des réponses vraisemblables et possibles, selon des probabilités mathématiques, n’empêchant ni les erreurs, ni les hallucinations ».Interroger les finalités pour prioriser les projetsL’intégration de l’IA nécessite, selon le CESE, pour les administrations, de considérer une série de questions : « pourquoi cette modernisation est-elle essentielle : améliorer la qualité des services ? réduire les coûts ? réduire les effectifs d’agents publics ? En interrogeant les finalités de la transformation, cela permet de prioriser les projets les plus transformants en tenant compte des critères éthiques et des principes inhérents au service public ».Le CESE, en conclusion, appelle à déployer des systèmes d’IA, mais à deux conditions :« qu’ils améliorent la qualité du service public et les conditions de travail des agents qui y concourent ;que soient véritablement appliquées les obligations de transparence, de redevabilité et d’explicabilité, lorsque les systèmes d’IA sont déployés pour exécuter le droit (par exemple, pour calculer le montant d’un impôt), qu’ils s’avèrent incontournable (à l’instar de Parcoursup) ou qu’ils aboutissent à des décisions individuelles produisant des effets juridiques, économiques ou sociaux qui affectent les personnes ».Dans la continuité de ses avis antérieurs, le CESE recommande :« de proposer systématiquement un accompagnement et un accueil humain en alternative au service dématérialisé, comme cela se déploie au travers des espaces France Service ;d'inscrire dans la loi le principe d'un droit au non-numérique, et en garantissant l'égalité d'accès et la liberté de choix pour toutes et tous ».

  • Inclusion

  • Citizenship

  • Innovation

Sources

Labo Société Numérique

Labo République Française Agence nationale de cohésion des territoires
[Feature] Artificial intelligence and public services: what doctrine of use?