Artificial Intelligence: US vs. EU

Almost always, each person is led to do what they have become addicted to. However, in many cases, not breaking out of the dominant routine that one has fallen into creates strong obstacles to the goals that one wants.

The European Union is persistently committed to regulation. This tendency is well-known. Some say that its DNA contains a “ regulatory frenzy ” chip, which sweeps everything it touches into bureaucracy. Brussels’ best product is toxic, it bureaucratizes/hampers the lives of everyone, companies, states, families. Everything.

Ursula von der Leyen, in her “competitiveness compass”, seems to have woken up to this malevolent trend of “ regulatory frenzy ”. She said at the time that she would indeed cut red tape and do it quickly, but when she announced it she immediately fell into the trap of pointing out the wrong paths and creating a range of structures that are completely useless for the purpose of making the European Union competitive. It would have been much better, for example, to have said that she would think about how to transform the DG Competition into a supporting body, rather than a biased blockade of the effective functioning of the EU.

It is difficult for the EU to break out of this web in which it has become entangled. Now, in partnership with Macron, it has invented another simulation for the problems. “ Retreats and Summits ” for everything. And so, what has come of it?! Useful conclusions, few or none , uncertainties and divisions, many .

Artificial intelligence

In Artificial Intelligence (AI), the European Union's first steps were channeled into legislation, when the European Union still had an insignificant position in the AI ​​Ecosystem. One or another European country, perhaps with some prominence France, was already appearing in some areas of AI, but to a much lesser extent than what was happening in the USA and China, but the European Union itself had done little or nothing and, when it "woke up", it immediately pushed towards the regulation that it chose as its priority.

Promoting a strategy, thinking about and implementing, in a dynamic way, cooperation between research laboratories and companies from different member countries has received little attention from the European Commission. Needless to say, China and the US disagree with the EU on this approach. And they rightly say that strict legislation, as advocated by the EU, is a real brake on the development of AI.

With Trump, the situation is undoubtedly accelerating and the aim is to technologically dominate the world of AI, in which the US is in fact at the forefront. Consolidating this position will be Trump's great aim.

And so, on January 21, the day after taking office, he launched the “ Startgate ” program, over four years, worth 500 billion dollars, with the support of some major players in the sector (OpenAI, Oracle, etc.) to compete in the global market that accounts for 35% of the market capitalization, ahead of sectors such as energy and banking.

The US, with an already comfortable position with Biden, wants to consolidate and remain a pioneer as happened with OpenAI.

However, the Chinese start-up, DeepSeek, came to shake up the market at the end of January with its Chatbolt R1, causing a stock market crash among American technology giants, such as Nvidia, which, according to some analysts, finds itself in a difficult situation of survival.

The start-up DeepSeek has shaken the confidence of the big American AI technology groups because, with much lower investment costs – six million dollars (compared to OpenAI's five billion/year) – it has presented a product similar to existing ones and with lower energy consumption costs , another area that is demanding great care and decisions, for example, some technology groups are forming joint ventures with nuclear energy producers to meet foreseeable consumption needs.

The question is latent. Why is so much being spent, when others are doing the same or similar things with much less investment and less energy consumption?! This situation calls into question the commitment to Trump's program (won't everything need to be rethought?!) and whether technology groups will have to correct their paths.

Elon Musk even seemed perplexed by the announced program and soon there were voices crying out of disagreement! Shortly after, he appeared with Grok3, a software, the latest version of his conversational robot, developed by his AI company, to compete with ChatGPT and DeepSeek, announcing that it is the “ smartest AI on Earth ”.

Europe tries something…

Europe had to respond and so Macron, now in a merry-go-round as a promoter of “ Summits and Retreats ”, not always understanding how he replaces or overrides the EU so easily, promoted, in Paris, on the 10th and 11th of January, at the Grand Palais, the II World AI Summit, with the presence of Heads of State, Leaders of international organizations, Experts and Representatives of civil society.

The summit, coordinated by France and India, outlined a number of interesting general principles. For Macron, the summit will serve to “ re-synchronize ” Europe with China and the US, ensuring that regulation will not stifle the growth of the sector in Europe. He seems to have gotten the message from his opponents .

The European Commission, through Ursula von der Leyen, took the opportunity to announce on the second day of the Summit that the European Union will invest 200 billion euros in AI, with 50 billion coming from community funds and 20 billion being invested in data centres with more advanced equipment than the current ones, which, according to the Commission, is necessary to allow the “collaborative development” of the most complex AI models.

This announcement, according to the media that covered the event, follows that of Macron who, the previous Sunday, presented a “109 billion euro investment plan for AI projects in France over the coming years”.

The Summit was well attended, Ursula von der Leyen got her message across trying to “rival” Trump, but without a very objective program. The Summit culminated with a declaration, signed by 60 countries , including China, but without the agreement of the USA and the United Kingdom.

The Declaration has six main conclusions: bridging the digital divide; ensuring accessibility; driving sustainable development; fostering innovation; strengthening global governance; and ensuring that AI contributes positively to the future of work. Each conclusion is a world with many readings, some contradictory.

But, from each of these “worlds”, I was unable to derive a clear answer to the big question: are the participants in the Summit and, above all, the States, inclined to support an AI where they count on and dominate the business of Big Techs , or for an AI understood as a public value , oriented towards technological development at the service of the economy and governance of countries.

The author writes according to the old spelling.