  Artificial Intelligence represents many things: a new market to conquer or a
quality label for tech companies, a threat for traditional industries, a menace
for democracy, or a blessing for our busy everyday life. The press abounds in
examples illustrating these aspects, but one should draw not hasty and
premature conclusions. The first successes in AI have been a surprise for
society at large-including researchers in the field. Today, after the initial
stupefaction, we have examples of the system reactions: traditional companies
are heavily investing in AI, social platforms are monitored during elections,
data collection is more and more regulated, etc. The resilience of an
organization (i.e. its capacity to resist to a shock) relies deeply on the
perception of its environment. Future problems have to be anticipated, while
unforeseen events occurring have to be quickly identified in order to be
mitigated as fast as possible. The author states that this clear perception
starts with a common definition of AI in terms of capacities and limits. AI
practitioners should make notions and concepts accessible to the general public
and the impacted fields (e.g. industries, law, education). It is a truism that
only law experts would have the potential to estimate IA impacts on judicial
system. However, questions remain on how to connect different kind of expertise
and what is the appropriate level of detail required for the knowledge
exchanges. And the same consideration is true for dissemination towards
society. Ultimately, society will live with decisions made by the "experts". It
sounds wise to involve society in the decision process rather than risking to
pay consequences later. Therefore, society also needs the key concepts to
understand AI impact on their life. This was the purpose of the trial of an IA
that took place in October 2018 at the Court of Appeal of Paris: gathering
experts from various fields to expose challenges in law and science towards a
general public.
