The European Parliament is fighting against neural slop: launching its own AI platform, EPGenAI Hub.
The European Parliament is facing a new threat — the widespread use of neural networks by deputies to prepare draft laws, speeches, and amendments. Instead of imposing total bans, the institution's leadership has chosen an unconventional path: launching its own platform, EPGenAI Hub. This service will provide access to models from OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic, and France's Mistral, but under strict control.
Crisis of Trust: Neural Networks Take Over Lawmaking
The issue came to light after a July meeting of committee chairs. Analysts recorded an abnormal surge in amendments requiring translation, with texts characterized by a distinct "dry" style and containing references to non-existent laws. According to my data, about 2,100 people — nearly a fifth of the staff — use neural networks daily to write speeches and inquiries.
Irish MEP Barry Andrews, who chairs the Development Committee, acknowledged that colleagues are increasingly turning to AI due to the heavy workload. However, he emphasized that such tasks remain key responsibilities of an MEP, and for now, legislators are not required to disclose their use of neural networks.
EPGenAI Hub: A Controlled Alternative
The new platform, presented at workshops, offers a choice between local models (Llama from Meta, GPT-OSS from OpenAI, Mistral Small) and external services (ChatGPT and Claude Sonnet). The official launch is scheduled for September. However, a major paradox lies here: by launching the platform, the Parliament is expanding the presence of American AI giants, despite Brussels' course toward reducing technological dependence on the U.S.
The Parliament's press service clarified that the list of available models may change in the coming months. The system is expected to include sovereign European solutions from new cloud providers.
Russian Context: Similar Issues
Similar incidents are occurring in Russia as well. Journalists suspected the use of ChatGPT in the preparation of draft law No. 1126815-8. The reason was a footnote in the explanatory note containing the label source=chatgpt.com. The State Duma committee explained that an employee used AI only for a quick search of the original source, and the data itself turned out to be correct. Nevertheless, this case highlights that drafting laws requires deep knowledge, which neural networks are not yet capable of handling.
My analysis: The European Parliament has chosen a pragmatic path — not to ban, but to control the use of AI. However, this is only a temporary solution. The problem of "neural slop" (low-quality AI content) will worsen until clear rules for labeling and accountability for using neural networks in lawmaking are established. Without this, we risk ending up with "fake laws" that reference non-existent norms.