America can switch off AI. Europe must switch gears before it's too late
euronews.comStep one: air conditioning. Step two: AI superpower.
Step one will result in the collapse of the pension system. We need to first make the pension system more robust before proceeding to roll out air conditioning across the continent.
Lack of air conditioning is leading to massive excess deaths among the elderly during heat waves.
Culling out the elderly during the annual heat waves is quickly becoming a European tradition.
That said…refusing to adopt AC may be Europe’s de facto solution to the pension crisis!
I thought it was was foolish insanity, but now I understand it’s just sound pension policy.
Yep. Elderly life isn’t worth a €2000 AC install. Grandma will just have to sacrifice herself so the pension systems and healthcare systems do not collapse. Sorry Oma.
I have noticed that austerity first economics is correlated with poor economic performance. There is no avoiding change and the question is if nations lean into the change or wall themselves into isolation and stagnation
Step zero: make energy as cheap as possible... no taxes on it
Basically Europe needs to become best friends with China and buy all the solar panels and all the electronics they are willing to spare. But the ineffective incumbent European industries throw rocks into those gears. Even though EU consumers are delighted with what China has to offer.
I think political landscape could use consumer focused political parties. Screw the business, screw the rent-seekers, rights-holders and estate-holders. Best deal for the consumer is king. Europe is first and foremost a market. And our politics should represent that.
> Basically Europe needs to become best friends with China...
China has embargoed rare earth exports to the EU [0] as well as enforcing sanctions against the EU's domestic drone and UAV industry [1]. China is also training Russian soldiers on drone tactics to be used in Ukraine [2][3] as well as continuing to back Russia's position on Ukraine [4].
If Europe wishes to be "friends" with China, it means giving Russia primacy within Europe by giving up Ukraine, as well as completely giving up on European domestic industry.
This is obviously unacceptable for most eastern EU member states.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-firms-brace-more-shut...
[1] - https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3351292/...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russians-...
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-ap...
[4] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/putin-says-russia-china-...
> If Europe wishes to be "friends" with China, it means giving Russia primacy within Europe by giving up Ukraine, as well as completely giving up on European domestic industry.
Absolutely not. China is not a friend of russia. It's just convenient for them to prolong the time that russia bleeds out. The best way of achieving this is not letting russia to lose to fast. Any kind of russian success does not serve China in any capacity.
Europe could offer China a lot to tip the balance.
> Europe could offer China a lot to tip the balance
> Any kind of russian success does not serve China in any capacity
That's not what the Chinese policymakers think [0][1].
They view the EU as a has-been that thinks it's a global power but lacks the technology or capability to become one [2].
On the other hand, Russia helps China put pressure on Japan [3], South Korea [4], Central Asia [5], backchannel with India [6], allows China to bypass Hormuz [7], and is transferring military IP to China [8].
Even China's foreign minister Wang Yi told Kaja Kallas this point blank [9] and even the Polish policymaking space recognizes this [10].
[0] - https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/_t2515/57/f8/c21257a743416/page.ht...
[1] - https://ies.cass.cn/cn/work/comment/202206/t20220601_5410899...
[2] - https://www.ccpit.org/france/a/20260623/20260623vb86.html
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-b...
[4] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxq38028djo
[5] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china-looks-strengthen-ties-ru...
[6] - https://eastasiaforum.org/2020/10/23/how-russia-emerged-as-k...
[7] - https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3345920/m...
[8] - https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme...
[9] - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/ch...
[10] - https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2025-01-...
> They view the EU as a has-been that thinks it's a global power but lacks the technology or capability to become one
Which is spot on. That's why Europe should do everything in their power to facilitate technology sharing.
And China is not interested in doing so with European states let alone other countries.
Heck, the PRC just passed legislation that all technology transfers outside of China need final approval from the central government [0].
And as I pointed out above but you ignored, China does not view the EU as an equal nor as a potential partner. They just like the US are more interested in bilateral relations with individual states that are pliable to them instead of the supranational EU.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-toughens-ru...
China is super interested in spreading their influence using market means. They'd happily set up shop in Europe. And when the shop is set up in a foreign land the technology spreads naturally as US learned with China.
> China is super interested in spreading their influence using market means
Not if it means giving up IP and knowhow to partners - hence Chinese government policy shifts to enact mass export controls [0] out of national security concerns
> And when the shop is set up in a foreign land the technology spreads naturally as US learned with China
The US along with allies like South Korea, Japan, and West Germany transferred IP to China in the 1980s to 2000s which helped build their capacity in industries like automotive (VW-SAIC) and battery tech (BYD-Samsung, CATL-TDK).
China has changed it's regulations to prevent domestic players and foreign businesses operating in China from transferring know-how out of China, as was seen with the export controls China put on Apple and BYD suppliers [1] shifting to India and ASEAN.
----
As I have pointed to you with sources
1. China has significant disdain for Europe
2. China has significant strategic linkages with Russia that cannot be broken
3. China is actively clamping down on IP and technology transfers leaving China
China - just like the US - is uninterested in negotiating with the EU as equals nor in providing it capabilities for technological self sufficiency.
[0] - https://m.guancha.cn/politics/2026_06_02_819137.shtml
[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-17/china-mov...
> Not if it means giving up IP and knowhow to partners
Was US interested in that? These things just happen when you do business. And don't happen as much if you don't.
> Chinese government policy shifts to enact mass export controls out of national security concerns.
Gee, I wonder who they got those silly ideas from. How well is that working for the country who came up with this first?
> The US along with allies like South Korea, Japan, and West Germany transferred IP to China in the 1980s to 2000s
Out of sheer goodness of their hearts, I'm sure. No, you just can't exploit someone efficiently, without sharing at least some of what you know. That's just what's needed and what happens when you do this kind of business.
Getting exploited in this fashion brought China tremendous advantage. Europe should follow this path.
> China - just like the US - is uninterested in negotiating with the EU as equals nor in providing it capabilities for technological self sufficiency.
What gave you the impression that I postulate "as equals" negotiation? There are no equals in geopolitics, ever. US spent more than last half a century treating Europe as a vassal state, suppressing its development and exploiting it for capital, technology and people. That's not new for Europe. US nukes have been pointed at half of Europe for a very long time and the other half defense anf politics were fully infiltrated by the US. It's not new for Europe to carve out comfortable existence under someone's boot. But keeping yourself bound to a "has been" empire on its way down is not a winning strategy.
> China has significant strategic linkages with Russia that cannot be broken
Of course they can. Russia is maybe a few years (at most decades) away from losing significant part of its territory to China.
> China has significant disdain for Europe
Rightfully so. And Europe would need to be a good and useful client and a partner for a decade or two before it can change.
> China - just like the US - is uninterested in negotiating with the EU as equals nor in providing it capabilities for technological self sufficiency.
Europe is the only political entity on Earth that has self sufficiency in making most advanced lithography machines. China can't make them, US can make them. They would need piles of money (which they have) and decades of work (which they don't) to change that. Europe just should walk down from its pedestal and play their cards, including the strongest one, to get in good graces with China, because US is on its way out.
> As I have pointed to you with sources
Your sources are other people's narrations. But thank you very much for providing them, so that I could asses them.
What you're saying is EU can't be friends with the US because of Trump but is still dependent on the US, it can't be friends with Russia because of Ukraine, and it can't be friends with China but is still dependent on it.
How is the EU not completely boned in this case, being stuck between countries it doesn't like but is forced to do business with and has no leverage do do anything about it as is completely dependent on trade with them.
Referring to humanity as "consumers" is gross.
Really?
Referring to someone as the "consumer" is talking about the part of their life where they exert their economic power to fulfill their and their dependents needs and desires.
When you say "worker" you are talking about the time when they sell their life away and suspend their freedoms to get resources to stay alive. So basically when they are at their lowest. It should feel way more offensive to you and the fact it doesn't says a lot about how the culture was shaped to benefit who it benefits.
I also wouldn't reduce a human to a "worker".
Perhaps your relationship with the world is that you reluctantly labour so that you have money which you can exchange for the things that you want. Many people relate to the world this way, but not all of them.
The most joyful moments of my life are things like hiking with friends, or good conversation, or spending time with family, not purchasing commercial goods. And conversely, my work often gives me opportunities to help people, which I find fulfilling. If I didn't need the money (and I don't, probably) then I would still spend at least some of my time doing something work-like.
The economic lens is only one (incomplete) way of viewing human activity. Don't get so attached to that lens that you diminish your view of yourself, and your own potential.
> I also wouldn't reduce a human to a "worker".
Yet, it's done routinely in public communication and portrayed as something noble.
> Many people relate to the world this way, but not all of them.
So? Is the distinction even economically relevant? The fact that you hate or love your chains has no bearing for the slavemaster.
> The most joyful moments of my life are things like hiking with friends, or good conversation, or spending time with family, not purchasing commercial goods.
That's great. I never said that being a consumer is joyful or the whole picture of human existence. Only that that's where the poor people are most economically powerful and that this should politically embraced, promoted and protected.
> The economic lens is only one (incomplete) way of viewing human activity.
Sure, but we were talking about economy and associated politics.
I don’t think I have a slavemaster. I work with friends on a project which helps people and makes us enough money to live off of. Maybe the capitalists who funded our project are the slavemasters, in your worldview? Maybe I am the slavemaster, since I have a share in the company?
Perhaps you are not representative?
> Maybe the capitalists who funded our project are the slavemasters, in your worldview?
Not literal of course. Just filling the role of.
> Best deal for the consumer is king
Except best deal for consumer is subsidized (aka dumping) by CCP until local competition is destroyed. Next year solar and batteries are going to have price hikes because China finally stopped export subsidies.
But then perhaps if you believe Peter Thiels "Competition is for suckers" thesis then enabling monopoly focus on cost rather than competition is best for everyone.
Dumping is the word used for some other nations effective industrial development policy
No, it literally is dumping.
E. g. Chinese EV makers were selling at a loss (even with subsidies) until very recently this year and are struggling immensely now.
Are current AI offerings from companies in the US considered dumping?
Chinese EV makers are selling at a loss to Chinese people as well. It's not a cunning strategy to destroy EU industry. It's capitalistic competition driven to absurd levels. In the west it rarely ever happens anymore because governments are in the pockets of the business, but in China, companies really do compete between themselves to the death.
If you want to see a glimpse of this, look on youtube for materials on Chinese EV scooter rental business market.
European people could massively benefit from this Chinese competition. European business can't offer consumer similar deals because it's inefficient due to business-protectionist policies of Western governments. Instead of treating it as an impulse to step up, they provide more protectionism while the European consumers are not getting the value they could making Europe altogether poorer and less technologically advanced than it could be.
I can understand US fearmongering because they are in the process of losing the lead permanently and it shatters their entire national identity. But Europeans singing the same song is just silly. When someone is more advanced than you and offers you superior value for cheap you should buy all you can and learn all you can.
So an anarcho-capitalist society?
Absolutely not. Strict pro-consumer regulations, tightly following technological advancements, balancing consumer choice with consumer safety, with complete disregard for any capitalistic interests.
It may be necessary in some situation.
If you look at current Ukraine, its drone sector is basically anarcho-capitalist. Little to no regulation, people do what they want with extremely short OODA loops. It also works in the sense that is stopped Muscovy in its tracks and Ukraine became the worldwide hub of innovation when it comes to military robots, even though it only has maybe 25 million people left in its territory, and economy the size of Nebraska.
Much richer and safer countries to the west of it just cannot keep pace and resort to licensing Ukrainian designs for their own production. Including the US.
As a European I have long given up on any meaningful change w.r.t AI. Imho the average European is much more risk averse than the average American or Chinese. That and a plethora of other factors that have been discussed over and over again, make it unlikely that we'll see things change within the next ten years or so. Only massive and immediate threats (e.g. he crisis in Ukraine) will make people and governments reconsider their fundamental beliefs (and even then the pace of change will be slow).
I think this view stems mainly from the fact that we don’t have any big names like Anthropic or OpenAI, and that Europe is a bit slow off the mark. We do indeed have many promising tech start-ups, and plenty of talent, particularly in the field of AI. However, you don’t hear anything about many of these start-ups, as they often do not work on the flashy stuff. I would even go so far as to say that Europe is generally a continent where many influential companies fly under the radar. We simply don’t have any ‘rock stars’ like the US does. What we can actually be criticised for is squandering potential. Many promising and potentially disruptive developments remain confined to the universities. Unlike in the US, start-ups aren’t so easily set up here and showered with venture capital. However, we are not following the Chinese model either, where tech start-ups are bankrolled by the government - and I think we have atleast to choose for one of these models to accelerate development.
imho the biggest issue is structural - that investment and capital is spread out. Having tried to launch a startup in the EU and failed due to lack of access to capital, we could have moved to hamburg or berlin or london or paris, but not a place bigger than all of them at once the way a startup can in the us moving to san fran or NY.
Such concentration of wealth couldn't exist in the EU, its structurally designed to spread out wealth amongst its member nations. Probably a good thing for quality of life but it definately makes access to capital harder.
> immediate threats (e.g. he crisis in Ukraine)
I have been invited in one of the UA/EU UAV cooperation programs. The largest government body is behind this program. The invitation was a 38-page PDF, out of which 36 pages were dedicated to regulatory compliance and <2 pages about actual requirements for the product.
No, EU will not reconsider their beliefs.
Europe’s biggest problems are a cultural superiority complex (we’re better than brutish Americans who only care about money), combined with deep seated racism (we’re better than our former colonies, eg China), and a heavy dose of denialism (buying cheap Russian oil could never bite us in the ass).
Thinking you’re superior to everybody else and sticking your head in the sand isn’t exactly the recipe for success.
There’s also a huge talent drain: many Europeans who realize the superiority complex isn’t built on solid foundations - particularly in science, engineering, research, and development - leave to the US because they want to be with the best, which aren’t solely Americans, it’s people from around the world who aggregate in the US.
Europe has a brief window to be the new global talent hub as MAGA is attempting to destroy the US edge from within, but Europe is absolutely blowing it with mini-MAGA movements instead.
Europe has a lot to offer, but it needs to get real about where it stands in the world.
I am not sure whether an average European is more risk averse than an average American or Chinese. This is hard to measure. But in general, technological progress mostly does not depend on average people, and we have more than enough young warriors to try new things. Unfortunately the regulatory environment pushes them out to North America, where you don't have to jump through so many bureaucratic hoops.
Now the funny thing: everyone I talk to agrees that Europe is overregulated and that the amount of paperwork is unhealthy. But everyone also seems to have their own pet regulation that they will defend to death, and the sum of those pet regulations is basically the entire suffocating code. After all, those papers usually aren't brainchild of the bureaucrats themselves; they came into being as a result of lobbying of special interests, and those special interests usually still exist and are vigilant about protecting their achievements.
I am not sure if anyone, anywhere ever achieved an actual significant reduction of bureaucracy (say, by 30-40 per cent or more) by anything less than a societal collapse or a debellatio during a military defeat, Germany 1945 style. This seems to be the hardest, most intractable societal problem of entire humanity. Not cancer, not aging - we can probably conquer both. But an endless aggregation of more and more papers until the entire machine stops in its tracks.
I just had an across-fence talk with my neighbor, who is a retired teacher. She is not that old, and she told me that she retired voluntarily after the balance of her work shifted to "I spent more time filling out questionnaires and records than actually teaching kids".
Oof.
As a European, I see the word "change" used all the time as if it is a good thing. Change is good, bad or indifferent depending on circumstances. It is not automatically progress.
>It is not automatically progress.
Irrelevant. The world changes for better and for worse, whether you want to or not, and you can only ignore it and piss against the wind so long before you get wet.
Ignoring, resisting or opposing global change only works if you're THE global hegemon and can bully everyone else to operate by your rules. Europe is not, therefore it can't dictate terms for others so it can't keep resisting global changes without loosing more of its prosperity, leverage and influence to the rest of the world.
EU is stuck in the middle of the race between two superpowers, and if it refuses to take part in the race and sit it out, it will simply become a colony of the winning power(s). It's why the US entered WW1 and WW2 even if it didn't have to. Because if it didn't and just decided to sit it out chilling away from the conflit, it would have missed out on all the major industrial and technical progress the war effort has led to and the USSR would have swallowed everything. That's how it became the world hegemon.
EU on the other hand keeps deciding to sit out most of the global battles and gets left behind with no leverage in key sectors, then complains that its trading partners are treating it "unfairly". Well yeah, when you have no leverage you will only get sloppy seconds, that's how the world works. If you want a piece of the action, you have to get in the fight, get a little bloody, and take what you want, not sit by and expect the victor will share a piece of the spoils with you for free.
> It's why the US entered WW1 and WW2 even if it didn't have to. Because if it didn't and just decided to sit it out chilling away from the conflit, it would have missed out on all the major industrial and technical progress the war effort has led to and the USSR would have swallowed everything.
The USSR was formed in 1922. Up until September 1917 (a consequence of the February revolution), Russia was ruled by the tsars. The US declared war on Germany on April 2, 1917.
> The world changes for better and for worse,
Erm, that was my point.
But I have heard people saying they "like change". I like change for the better and not the other kinds so much.
NB: Europe =/= EU. I am in part of Europe which isn't in the EU.
> I like change for the better and not the other kinds so much.
I think you missed my point. I never said people should like change for the worst, my point was the change for the worst is often inevitable in the world, and the issue I was talking about is that the EU doesn't do anything when changes for the worst inevitably happen.
If the EU doesn't like changes for the worst happening, then it needs to get up its ass and implement the changes it wants to see in the world, by force if it has to, like the US and China are doing for their own interests. But the EU does nothing, it just sits on the sidelines, complains, talks down to, and moralizes its citizens and the rest of the word on how everyone should stop doing those bad things, which just gets applause from liberal activists, but doesn't actually fix anything, so EU's prosperity and influence declines leaving it poorer, more vulnerable and more and more at the mercy of external bad actors simply because it does nothing practical, only feel-good PR stunts and speech control on social media.
Edit: like the 3 Euro parcel tax the EU just added starting from today.
I just don't think we are able to do things. Language and countries split us apart.
Americans have one big internal market. Chinese as well. Indians - also.
In Europe? We just can't, you need to start in one country, you need to localise your products, then offer support in various languages, and I didn't even start to say anything about various tax laws or laws in general in other countries of the Union.
I believe that's the biggest issue we have and it will never be resolved.
Well India has a diverse set of languages spread across its regions. As I understand it, the degree to which English thrives there is largely because choosing any other administrative language would be seen as oppressive to the other languages. Again, only stuff I picked up from the various Indian colleagues I have had.
Point being; I don’t think that is any different really from Europe. If they can manage, so can we.
True, but they are one country in the end. We are not, and even if personally I do dream of European Federation, I know that this is an utopia that would have 0% chance to work in reality.
Nah, we will be fine. AI isn't sustainable, financially or otherwise. It will collapse and take a big chunk of the US economy with it.
"AI isn't sustainable" is a completely meaningless statement but exemplary of the thought patterns of the bumper sticker thought compression of the social media addict.
Agreed. https://isaiprofitable.com/
>It will collapse and take a big chunk of the US economy with it.
I got news for you. If the US economy goes down, EU goes down with it, just like in 2009.
Anthropic and OpenAI have seen consistent revenue growth, as have their Chinese peers like Alibaba and DeepSeek.
While some aspects of AI are overstated, it has had a very real and tangible impact at least in the US and China in a number of white collar roles.
Additonally, the fact that China is allocating $295B [0] for an AI buildout as is the US [1] and are using it to also help their domestic GreenTech and DeepTech ecosystems means the AI boom is having a downstream impact in multiple sectors.
EU states already missed out on the Dotcom, Social Media, Cloud, IoT, EV, and GreenTech booms at the expense of the US and China. If your sentiment is the norm within Europe, then both the US and China are correct to view the EU states as junior partners. States that control the technological frontier also control their destiny.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-prepares-295-billi...
[1] - https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/insights/energy-and-...
I'd rather have a world without "AI" then one with. As I see it, the negatives far outstrip the positives.
The thing is, reality doesn't care what you'd rather have, it simply happens with or without your consent. And burying your head in the sand doesn't change anything.
The right attitude for change is to see how you can get to the top of it first, to make sure you get to control the new tech in way that are ethical and congruent with your values, otherwise your rival will get to it first, and weaponize it against you if you sleep on it because you'd rather not have it.
> Finally, and in parallel to this, the Commission should build a new relationship with the US. It is a hard pill to swallow: whether we like it or not, in the medium term, Europe will depend on American compute and chip infrastructure to grow its own providers at the application layer.
A very long sounding "medium term".
Decisions here are made slowly, with complete information, and agreement from all parties. Once they’re made they’re then slow to change for all the same reasons.
Until this changes I don’t think Europe has any hope of competing with the US or China on anything they decide is important.
Europe has no chips, no energy, no venture capital, and no training data.
It is in fact too late.
We have nice art, though. And pretty old towns. We are well-positioned to be a Disneyland for the Chinese.
Let's let venture capital stay an American thing. High risk, high reward.
indeed this. Idiotic policies and choices around green energy is killing europe, we struggle with energy prices in the winter for heating, nevermind energy for AI datacenters. And why would anyone start an AI company in europe? It's like picking hard mode over just doing it in the US. I honestly, see a bleak future for europe, and it saddens me as an european.
America has already switched it off. Cutting edge Fable being US only was as clear of a warning shot as it gets. Especially considering China will not keep theirs open forever
Nah, we rather regulate ourselves out of existence. Any investment you do, the money will go to paying random taxes and fees to services that make sure you are filling the arbitrary criteria of bullshit. Maybe after that you have some pocket change to spend on your idea instead.
And if you do happen to make a successful company, then the governments want a cut of that too, because making money is a no-no thing.
> you have some pocket change to spend
Bear in mind that at this point you will owe in taxes multiple times over what your whole company is worth.