What’s going on here?

The European Parliament approved a legal framework limiting AI's role in society, presumably after spending an evening working through a dystopian film library.

What does this mean?

Decades of literature have told us that AI agents aren’t exactly driven by a desire to protect humanity. And according to today’s scientists and tech wizards, that concern isn’t reserved for the world of fiction. So now, members of the European Parliament are pushing for specialized laws that would prevent certain actions, like detecting emotions in workplaces and schools, making decisions in high-stakes situations like job applications, and scraping CCTV to build facial recognition databases. Any companies that go against the grain could be landed with fines up to €35 million ($37.7 million) or – oddly specifically – 7% of their worldwide sales.

Why should I care?

Zooming out: Pandora’s box.

The European Parliament is mainly concerned about AI’s ability to replace humans in important decision-making roles, which could lead to misinformation, bias, and privacy breaches. But lawmakers want to find the sweet spot, where AI could enhance human life and companies’ productivity by automating certain tasks without, you know, violating basic rights. Plus, come down too hard and Europe could fall behind economically – not least because foreign companies, bound by less stringent rules, might avoid the region if they’d be more restricted there.

The bigger picture: High standards cost.

The US is drafting its own set of regulations, too – trailing behind China, where AI product approvals are already in place. But Europe has a history of sticking to the stricter side, no matter whether the matter is privacy, the environment, food safety, or consumer rights. And because regulations come with a cost that businesses need to foot, that partly explains why Europe’s stock markets tend to be valued lower than stateside equivalents. So unless European AI rules turn uncharacteristically lax, don’t count on that gap closing up anytime soon.

What’s going on here?

The value of the global art market fell by 4% last year, suggesting that even the very wealthiest have dropped their champagne budgets to, uh, slightly less expensive champagne budgets.

What does this mean?

The world’s art market picked up dust last year, falling to a three-year low of $65 billion. Now, the market does dip every few years, often by more than 4%. Strangely, though, the most expensive works took the brunt this time. Usually, the very richest investors – the only ones that can pick up a Monet like it’s a print at a Sunday market – aren’t financially impacted by the problems of the everyday masses. So unless world-renowned art has suddenly fallen out of favor, this bout of high interest rates, inflation, and political instability has even the ultra-wealthy watching their wallets.

Why should I care?

For you: Master the art.

Tensions are heating up between major countries, China’s deep in an economic hole, and with 40% of the world headed to the voting polls, the political landscape is far from locked in. So if the risky climate is why one-percenters are abstaining from fine art, the rest of the year could be quiet too. That could give budding art investors time to browse while prices are easier on the eye – a prospect only beaten by free prosecco at a private viewing.

The bigger picture: Maybe luxury loyalists don’t need more watches than wrists.

It’s not just the walls of mansions – or more likely, pitch-black private cellars – that are looking a little emptier recently. Big-buck shoppers have been spending less on luxury wares to fill their bespoke closets, forcing high-end brands to take a breather from the intense price hikes they’ve been rolling out since 2019. Even Rolex, as famous for its constantly inflating prices as it is for mother-of-stone watch faces, kept the same price tags out at the start of the year.