[Panel Discussion] Policy in a Decentralised World: Building Digital Resilience

3 Oct 2025 10:00h - 11:00h

Session at a glance

Summary

This panel discussion examined Europe’s approach to AI governance and policy in the face of increasing American technological dominance and geopolitical competition. The conversation was moderated by Alexander E. Brunner, who set the stage by describing how major US tech companies like OpenAI and NVIDIA now partner directly with countries rather than corporations, and how President Trump’s AI policy focuses on American leadership and forcing other nations to buy US AI technology.

The panelists, representing various perspectives from IBM Research, Palantir, defense simulation, entrepreneurship, and EU policy, debated whether traditional governance approaches remain viable in the AI era. Alessandro Curioni from IBM emphasized the importance of openness and transparency in AI development, arguing that closed, non-transparent systems would only fuel geopolitical warfare. Courtney Bowman from Palantir challenged the notion that Europe could recreate the entire digital technology stack independently, suggesting instead that Europe should focus on preserving decision-making autonomy and data sanctity while building on existing infrastructure.

The discussion highlighted tensions between European values-based approaches emphasizing human rights, transparency, and regulation versus American emphasis on speed, scale, and market dominance. Panelists explored whether Europe’s regulatory approach, exemplified by GDPR and the EU AI Act, represents necessary safeguards or competitive disadvantages. The conversation touched on practical challenges including AI-generated misinformation, the need for technological solutions to verify authenticity, and the difficulty of regulating at the pace of AI development.

Several panelists advocated for decentralized approaches and emphasized that Europe’s strength might lie in developing more thoughtful, trust-based AI systems rather than competing directly on speed and scale. The discussion concluded with recognition that Europe must define its strategic vision for competing in the global AI landscape while maintaining its commitment to democratic values and human rights.

Keypoints

Major Discussion Points:

– Geopolitical Power Dynamics in AI: The discussion centers on how AI has fundamentally shifted global power structures, with major tech companies (OpenAI, NVIDIA) now partnering directly with countries rather than corporations, and the Trump administration’s “America First” approach to AI dominance versus Europe’s values-based approach.

– Europe’s Regulatory Approach vs. US Innovation Speed: A central tension between Europe’s emphasis on governance, transparency, and human rights (through regulations like GDPR and EU AI Act) versus America’s “Wild West” approach that prioritizes rapid innovation and market dominance, with debate over whether regulation enables or hinders competitiveness.

– The Role of Values in Technology Development: Discussion of what European values (transparency, trust, traceability, human rights) should guide AI development, and whether these values can be maintained while competing at the scale and speed required in the global AI race.

– Digital Sovereignty and Technological Dependencies: Examination of Europe’s ability to develop independent AI capabilities versus accepting dependence on US technology infrastructure, with debate over what aspects of “digital sovereignty” are realistic and necessary to preserve.

– AI Governance Challenges: How to address practical issues like AI-generated misinformation, deepfakes, and election interference through policy frameworks, while balancing free expression with the need for authenticity and trust in information systems.

Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how Europe can navigate the AI revolution while maintaining its humanitarian values and competing with more aggressive approaches from the US and China. The panel sought to determine whether traditional policy approaches are still viable in the age of AI or if new frameworks are needed.

Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, analytical tone throughout, with moments of concern about Europe’s competitive position. The moderator set a provocative tone early by declaring “policy is dead” in the AI age, but panelists generally pushed back with more nuanced views. The conversation remained respectful but urgent, reflecting genuine uncertainty about Europe’s path forward in the global AI landscape.

Speakers

– Alexander E. Brunner: Moderator/Host of the panel discussion

– Alessandro Curioni: IBM Research, works on NIST standards and quantum safe standards, AI researcher

– Courtney Bowman: Representative from Palantir (US tech company), focuses on policy, regulation, dialogue, and privacy

– Armando Geller: Partner and founder of a Swiss-based AI battlefield simulation company, former professor in the US, works on military simulation and troop deployment

– Ravina Mutha: Long-term entrepreneur originally from India, now working in AI in Switzerland, runs an AI company with her husband, started with chatbots

– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini: AI researcher and works on EU policy, previously worked at Yale Lab in Buenos Aires on AI systems for justice

– Audience: Participant who asked a question about strategic perspectives between USA and EU

– Online moderator: Facilitates online questions during the discussion

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list provided.

Full session report

Panel Discussion: Europe’s AI Governance Strategy in the Face of Global Competition

Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Alexander E. Brunner, examined Europe’s strategic positioning in the global artificial intelligence landscape. The conversation brought together perspectives from IBM Research (Alessandro Curioni), Palantir (Courtney Bowman), Swiss AI company leadership (Armando Geller), entrepreneurship (Ravina Mutha), and EU policy research (Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini).

The discussion was framed by Brunner’s observation that major US technology companies like OpenAI and NVIDIA now partner directly with countries rather than corporations, fundamentally altering global power structures. Against this backdrop, the panellists explored whether Europe’s values-based approach to AI governance could remain competitive whilst maintaining its commitment to human rights, transparency, and democratic principles.

Setting the Context: The Changing Nature of Tech Partnerships

Moderator Alexander E. Brunner opened with a provocative observation based on recent conversations with technology leaders. He described meeting OpenAI’s head of EMEA Partnerships, who told him they now only partner with countries, not corporates. “We don’t do corporates anymore. We only do countries,” Brunner quoted. He noted similar patterns with NVIDIA doing partnerships directly with countries in Germany.

This shift led Brunner to make a stark declaration: “I think policy in the age of AI is dead. It doesn’t matter anymore unless you have might and you have brawns. Policy in the UN style, as we were before, I think is dead. AI has killed it.”

Brunner also observed that at recent conferences, Americans seemed more upset about Europe than China, suggesting shifting geopolitical dynamics in the AI space.

The IBM Research Perspective: Openness and Second-Mover Advantages

Alessandro Curioni from IBM Research challenged the premise that governance had become irrelevant. “The only way to make sure that AI developments become more impactful for the good and minimise the impact that can be negative is to drive this development in the most possible open and transparent ways,” he argued.

Curioni suggested that Europe’s position as a “second mover” could provide strategic advantages, allowing Europe to “do things better and more thoughtfully.” He emphasized the importance of integrating AI with other emerging technologies, particularly quantum computing, noting that quantum advances could potentially break current encryption methods and fundamentally change data value chains.

On combating AI-generated misinformation, Curioni advocated for technological rather than regulatory solutions, emphasizing the need to “verify authenticity at scale rather than limiting expression.”

The Palantir Perspective: Realistic Digital Sovereignty

Courtney Bowman from Palantir brought a pragmatic view to European digital sovereignty aspirations. “Europe will not be able to reconstitute all of those elements [of the digital stack],” she stated directly. “Europe and the rest of the world needs to come to terms with that reality.”

Instead of complete technological independence, Bowman advocated for strategic focus: “What they should be doing is building on the components of the technology stack that work, that preserve those critical elements of decision-making autonomy, of data sanctity.”

She praised European regulation for taking “a sophisticated risk-based approach rather than fixating on current technology,” suggesting this could work globally by focusing on systems-level integration. Bowman also noted differences in risk appetite between Europe and America when building advanced technologies.

The Swiss AI Company Perspective: Decentralisation and Historical Precedent

Armando Geller, whose company description as doing “battlefield simulation” made him visibly uncomfortable (he “squinted” at the characterization), brought historical perspective to the discussion. “I’m a strong believer in decentralisation as a principle,” he stated. “We’re steering or are already in a conflict of civilisations… we already won it once in 89/91 with a decentralised approach against a centralised opponent.”

Geller argued that “bottom-up and top-down policy approaches should work together through decentralisation,” positioning Europe’s diverse, democratic approach as potentially advantageous. He maintained that “laws still apply in armed conflict even in the AI age,” pushing back against suggestions that technological advancement had rendered legal frameworks obsolete.

The Entrepreneurial Perspective: Trust and Personal Experience

Ravina Mutha, an entrepreneur originally from India now working in AI in Switzerland with her husband, provided business insights and personal anecdotes. She shared a striking example of AI’s current state: receiving an AI-generated fake engagement photo from her cousin that looked completely realistic.

“When AI is everywhere, AI is a part of everything you do, and people are just hard-selling some kind of AI,” Mutha observed, “at some point, somebody needs to come in with the right values.” She argued that market dynamics would eventually favor companies prioritizing trust and privacy: “People are going to lose trust in tools that don’t respect privacy.”

Mutha advocated for “building resilient tools by design” rather than relying on post-hoc regulatory measures.

The EU Policy Research Perspective: Scale and Cooperation

Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini, speaking in his personal capacity as an AI researcher (not representing any organization), provided perhaps the most direct critique of current European approaches. He brought experience from working at Yale Lab in Buenos Aires on Promethea, one of the first AI systems for justice.

“We live in a decentralised era, but at the same time, the US is such a large market that actually can stand alone. European countries are not,” he observed. Le Fevre Cervini identified fragmentation as Europe’s fundamental weakness, arguing for “Europe sovereign policies” rather than individual state approaches.

He took a more regulatory stance on AI-generated misinformation, arguing that “regulation is needed to prevent deepfakes and control social media responsibility for fake news.” He also highlighted quality issues in current AI systems, noting problems with bias and accuracy rates in generative AI models.

Le Fevre Cervini shared an analogy he’d seen in a documentary about how 16 heads of state went to Paris after the Titanic accident to establish maritime safety rules, suggesting similar international cooperation was needed for AI.

Audience Engagement and Key Questions

The discussion included engagement from both physical and online audiences. Questions addressed practical concerns about AI-generated misinformation during elections and broader strategic questions about whether Europe needed to fundamentally revise its approach given global system changes.

One audience member questioned whether the current European consensus was based on an outdated worldview from the previous era, forcing panellists to consider whether traditional European values and methods remained viable in a more fragmented global order.

Key Themes and Tensions

Several key tensions emerged from the discussion:

Governance vs. Power: The fundamental question of whether traditional governance approaches could survive in an era where technological capability increasingly determines influence.

Technological vs. Regulatory Solutions: Disagreement over whether AI challenges like misinformation should be addressed through technological innovation or regulatory frameworks.

Digital Sovereignty vs. Pragmatic Dependence: Debate over how much technological independence Europe could realistically achieve versus building strategically on existing infrastructure.

Speed vs. Values: The challenge of maintaining European commitments to transparency and human rights while competing with faster-moving approaches elsewhere.

Conclusion

The panel revealed the complexity of Europe’s position in the global AI landscape, caught between maintaining democratic values and remaining competitive in an increasingly power-driven technological environment. While panellists disagreed on specific approaches, there was general consensus that Europe needed to find ways to implement its values more effectively at sufficient scale to remain relevant.

The discussion highlighted that Europe’s path forward likely involves neither abandoning its principles nor ignoring competitive realities, but rather finding innovative ways to make values-based approaches strategically viable in the AI age. The urgency of these questions was evident throughout, reflecting genuine uncertainty about how Europe can chart a course that preserves its democratic character while meeting the challenges of an AI-driven global order.

Session transcript

Alexander E. Brunner

Will you be able to handle it? I don’t know Will you be able to handle it? Will you be able to handle it?

Will you be able to handle it? I’d like to take this aspiration he had and talk about the future. Before I quickly introduce our panel, I want to do a bit of setting the scene.

I was recently at an OpenAI event, or I met some OpenAI people and had a discussion. I was talking to the head of EMEA Partnerships, and he was announcing partnerships with certain companies. I said, how’s that going, your partnership?

He said, yeah, we’re stopping partnerships with companies. We don’t work with corporates anymore. I’m like, oh, that’s interesting for OpenAI.

Why not? He said, we’re now doing partnerships with countries only. And that was a flex, a Silicon Valley flex, but it’s true.

And he talked about UAE. And then I recently bumped into NVIDIA and you must have seen the news, NVIDIA now also does partnerships with countries in Germany. So the level of ambition of those companies is unprecedented.

The other thing for setting the scene is I was recently in Washington. And for all of you who have never listened to Donald Trump talking about AI, I give you the benefit of the shortest summary ever. What he thinks about AI, President Trump, American AI is number one.

It’s the leader. We need number two. We need to be number one in the future and compete with anyone, particularly China and remain number one.

And three, the rest of the world, you guys buy from us, from America. You buy our AI. And fourth, if you don’t do it, we tax you or we do worse.

And that’s the approach of power policy. So when you then come to Europe, we talk about values and humanity, and I think that’s sort of a bit of a segue to our panel. How can Europe sort of interact with this might of approach to policy?

And I made a bit of a thought provoking start for the panel and I’ll sit down as well is I think policy in the age of AI is dead. It doesn’t matter anymore unless you have might and you have brawns. Policy in the UN style, as we were before, I think is dead.

AI has killed it. So the question is how, as a thought provoking start, how can we as a set of entrepreneurs and researchers and corporates and representatives of the UN and you deal with that? On our panel, we have a lot of practitioners.

You see, we have no policy wonks. So excuse me for the ones who are into policy. Alessandro, we’ve known us for a while.

You’re actually sitting in Rishikon, my hometown. You’re doing a lot of research in the IBM Research Facility. The NIST standard, the quantum safe standard was developed.

You know, talk about standards and you do a lot of other things. Welcome to the panel. Then we have Courtney.

Courtney is from Palantir. Welcome. You might have heard about Palantir.

There’s a lot of different opinions about the company based in Switzerland. You’re looking at policy, at regulation, how to have dialogue, privacy, a lot of those topics. So inside from a very big US tech company.

In the middle, we have Armando. He’s partner and founder of a sys-based AI battlefield simulation company. So you deal with, he’s squinting, he will correct you, but you do more simulation for armies, how to deploy troops, something very interesting.

Ravina, sort of my neighbor from Seville, the long-term entrepreneur, originally from India, now actively working in AI. So you can tell us what actually works and what doesn’t work. We had a lot of futuristic ideas.

And last but not least, we haven’t met Enzo. You’re on one hand a researcher, AI researcher, but you also work on EU policy and the EU angle. And so as a starting, maybe I’ll start with you, Alessandro.

How important has been open source and standards in developing AI and capabilities in Europe? As you have a lot of

Alessandro Curioni

insights and I’ll sit down. Thank you. Thank you.

And good morning, everybody. Look, I do believe that what is happening as the previous keynote speaker made very, very, very clear, right, is very different with respect to what we have experienced so far, yeah, in the different revolutions, the different instruments that became available.

And even if I don’t agree with you that, you know, governance is dead, I do believe that governance and regulation needs to change a lot, okay? If you connect back to AI, I do believe that the only way to make sure that AI developments become more impactful for the good and minimize the impact that can be negative than many that we have seen, is to drive this development in the most possible open and transparent ways.

That, you know, they might look at you, easy word to say, and very detached by the reality, but I do strongly believe that without pushing that, we will not be able to get a governance that changes fast enough to align with what is happening.

We will not be able to build trust. We will not be able to make sure that what you said about this new instrument, that is AI, is not going to become simply a geopolitical competition or is stronger, okay? Because if the reaction of what you have said is simply, we need to try to do the same, the full world is going to have AIs that are going to be closed, non-transparent, exactly to feel the geopolitical, you know, warfare.

So openness and transparency, in my opinion, will be two key components that we have to continue to push to make sure that the developments are going in the right direction.

Alexander E. Brunner

Thank you very much, Alessandro. I think to the topic of speed, we’ll come back. Everyone agrees that AI moves at an incredibly incredible speed.

And we heard before, policy governance takes time. So there’s a conflict. But maybe moving on to you, Courtney, you represent a very large U.S.

tech company that is very dominant in AI as well and in other industries. How do you see Europe versus U.S.? I mean, I know you have a very profound view on where AI is, but do you see this tension between the U.S.

and Europe or do you see their benefits? How do you approach this two-sided approach to sort of innovation that is currently happening.

Courtney Bowman

Yeah, there are many different dimensions to this. I think you can start looking at this from the perspective of what is Europe doing with respect to regulation of AI, what is the U.S. doing.

In broad strokes, you can maybe characterize it as the U.S., the EU is taking the lead, it’s the Brussels effect amplified with respect to AI, it’s sort of taking the playbook of GDPR and applying it to a novel technology, while the U.S.

languishes and continues in its Wild West approach. I think in the very kind of broad strokes, that’s how the picture starts to look, but the reality is always more complex. And there are critiques on both sides of the Atlantic that this European approach to regulation doesn’t work because it’s oversubscribed, it’s trying to predict the direction of technology, when in fact technology is much more complicated, you have to really understand it deeply and you have to let it play out.

I don’t quite buy that, I think there’s some interesting things that are happening with EU regulation right now in terms of laying out a sophisticated approach that’s focused on identifying risk and tracking that risk.

And I think that plays into a playbook that may actually work globally, which is to say, starting to look at the systems level integration of AI technologies, as opposed to getting too fixated on the particular state of the art in the moment, which I think is where every nation gets lost in regulation, when it’s fixated on where the technology is today, as opposed to how it integrates with a broader set of technology systems, with social systems, and then tries to regulate it at that level.

So there are signs of hope in terms of looking at that kind of macro environment. But then there’s this other, and I’ll try to be brief, there’s another aspect of this, which is what is the regulation trying to do? And I think we have to really contend with the realities of what we’re doing.

regulation in Europe and the US are trying to do. Again, on the superficial level, regulation is meant to promote the advancement of a certain rights orientation, but there’s also an economic and competitive component to this. And the extent to which the regulatory landscapes are set up in order to create an economic level playing field, we have to really interrogate whether that’s the reality and are there not potentially other cultural elements that come into play?

Is there not the same risk appetite in Europe with respect to building advanced technologies that has allowed European or American companies to excel in these spaces? And how do we cultivate the kind of culture of innovation across the Atlantic, across the globe to get to a level playing field as opposed to trying to use a bludgeon of regulation to hold American companies down and allow European companies to rise?

I don’t think that’s gonna work without kind of looking at what’s culturally maybe broken in both sides of the Atlantic and trying to bridge that gap.

Alexander E. Brunner

Thank you. Now, maybe moving to Armando. I mean, sometimes we have those discussions like humanity and values, and it sounds very abstract.

We feel warm and fuzzy. In the arena of armed conflict, and we have a land war in Europe going on, this takes on a different meaning because it’s about who prevails on the battlefield. Armando, you’ve been active across Europe.

You actually were a professor in the US. Your company is in AI simulation for military and defense. And no, I’m not gonna divulge it, but in private, you told me there’s certain obstacles in Switzerland and in Europe that prevents a faster approach to innovation.

What’s your view? Is governance and policy enabling Europe to get stronger in that technology? Or are we, I mean, Palantir is active as well in this arena and Ukraine.

What’s your view? Is, are you feeling as an entrepreneur there’s enough opportunities or? Are there any shortcomings when it comes to values in Europe and policy?

Armando Geller

Well, I still believe that in the age of AI and when we talk about armed conflict, there are still laws that apply. They don’t, they didn’t become obsolete. I mean, that’s for, I think that’s a given.

And I think we should even not go there to discuss it. But when it comes to technological advance to ultimately make sure that we can live the lives in our societies freely that we want to live, then of course, there is on the one hand, a certain amount of pressure on technology companies that work in the sector or in sectors as we do.

So that we can help to ensure this, but then there is also the requirement and to some degree, the obligation to or of institutions. And someone said, by the way, rightly so that there is a lack of trust in those very institutions to enable this technological innovation and progress. So once again, that we can live the lives we want to live freely that we have gotten used to here in the West, whatever that construct West means.

So in this regard, I think there have been, to answer your question recently, developments here in Switzerland, but for example, also in Germany and in other European countries that definitely enable moving forward this kind of technology that helps to defend our values here in Europe.

Alexander E. Brunner

And a strong defense is like… It’s sort of the theme of this panel, you know, you need capabilities in prevailing in the battlefield. It’s not just values, but it’s more than that.

Ravi, you know, you’ve been in the trenches of AI for 10 years. You are, you’re running a company together with your husband out of Switzerland. You do AI, you started with Chatbot.

So you see, you’ve seen this entire development, you’re active in different countries. As an entrepreneur, do you feel capable enough in Europe to compete with American tech? Or is that something you think is an uneven battlefield?

Are there any shortcomings? What’s your view?

Ravina Mutha

Yeah, I mean, great question. I come from a different culture as well, right? So in Europe, one of the things is around values, around human rights, around the future.

And I think it depends a lot on how you see the future. So back to your point about regulations and about do you want to always be the front runner? Or do you want to stand for something beyond?

Because from a long-term perspective, what I strongly believe is this is the way to go, like in terms of EU regulations. I’m definitely not denying that it slows us down at times. I mean, it’s the small things around GDPR.

If you think about whether or not GDPR was even a success, some might disagree on this. So for me privately, it’s a difference in how I access websites. I have to click two more times, accept cookies a couple of times before I enter it.

But at the same time, there’s a certain level of awareness, which is just not present today, even for somebody like me that’s in the world of AI. When I now get a fake image, I mean, that happened to me last week. One of my cousins that’s 23 years old sent a picture with her boyfriend proposing to her.

And I said, oh my God, you’re way too young for this. What is wrong with you? To realize it’s AI generated.

And I think this goes back to regulations actually making sense. Are we going into long paperwork and this documentation that’s two extra clicks? or are we building something intrinsic?

And I think this is where Europe can have really the cutting edge when it comes to building tools that are resilient by design. So for example, when you think about all of these images, think about the scale back to the keynote, things are gonna scale way faster than we’ve ever seen before. This includes misinformation, this includes AI generated images.

How do you actually have something that’s not a watermark that you can erase, but beyond that, to actually differentiate between what’s good, what’s bad, and having a more long-term value-driven ideology?

Alexander E. Brunner

We’ll come back to that. I think scale and speed are the two things that are challenging when it comes to AI, and we talk about that a bit, what kind of values we need. I’ll come to you, Enzo.

I was in Washington, I was in different conferences, and the interesting observation was like, obviously America likes to talk about itself, that’s its, you know, everyone is very interested in talking about themselves, now Amazon are, but the interesting thing, the view of Europe was simple out of Europe, out of US.

Every time someone got really upset, it was about Europe. Europe has really, in the view of Americans, become the punching bag for data protection, Digital Markets Act, GDPR, EU AI, they don’t like that. It was interesting, they were talking more about Europe than China or anything else at those conferences, for the simple reason that the EU really riles Americans at the moment.

So from a, you’ve seen both, a researcher in Buenos Aires, interestingly, and your work for the EU, what is your perception? Is this all showmanship from the US, or are they really upset, or are there any repercussions, as Donald Trump likes to threaten with terrorists every second day? How would you set the playing field for Europe?

Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

Okay, so thanks for the question, and I will say, and I will state, I will speak for myself, not representing any organization. No one can speak for the EU. Exactly, not me for sure.

Sure. But I will frame it in a much larger response. And I will take the two plates I’m in.

Back in 2017, 2018, at the Yale Lab in Buenos Aires, we were in the forefront of AI production in the justice system. So one of the very first AI systems for the justice, helping up judges, was Promethea, was the very first AI produced internally in the public sector. And the release of each product that we had had to go through a very detailed analysis and testing that limited the capacity to go out and serve the public sector, only if there was a 97% threshold of veridicity and trustability.

When it came to the advent of generative models, one of the very first things that we did at the Yale Lab in 2022, it was a book that is called ChargePT Imperfect by Design. Why? Because the very first outcomes of generative AI models were producing such a level of bias, gender bias, race bias, impracticality of the responses, that basically you had around 45% to 50% of truth coming out of generative AI models.

The thing have gone better with for turbo or etc. And yet, right now, we are going back into a generation of very stupid come outs out of generative modes. Not that is a bad technology at all.

The point is that it’s based on a lot of fake and bias. And I would say the lack of transparency, the lack of trust as Alessandro was already referencing. So the point here is understanding whether we accept the model that a long time ago, Volvo started inputting into the safety and security of cars and putting on the seatbelt as a front runner and understand that actually, that was truly needed as a safety component.

One of the things that yesterday, by chance, I was looking at a documentary about the Titanic. And what happened after the Titanic is that 16 heads of state went to Paris after the accident of the Titanic, went to Paris and actually agreed on the fact that it was necessary to have safe boats for every passenger on the boat.

And it was absolutely important to have a 24-hour in a row radio system on because in case of accident, you could call for help and you were sure that someone was listening. So what has this to do with your question? The fact is, I tend to agree with, not with Trump, but with Dex on the fact that we need AI governance, but we need AI governance.

for the fact that we need to trust something that we actually use as a tool. And if we don’t do that, we will fail, not just as tech givers, but as society in itself. And one of the things is that, yes, maybe Europe sounds absolutely of a burden.

And to some extent, I believe on everything that the previous panel said, is important that we go into a sense of adaptability of the fast-paced scenario we are today with our growing and fast society.

But at the same time, we need to trust and believe that we are a governed society. We are not choosing anarchy for the sake of economic growth. We still need rules and respect to each other.

We need to respect international law, which actually is something that has been failing over the last few years. So to respond to you is, I do believe that in this circle right now, where we are into the position of not respecting anything, have the free rides for the conquer of the West, we have to put rules and regulations in order to avoid newcomers to kill the Indian natives population in the West fields of America.

And this is what is happening today.

Alexander E. Brunner

Maybe in the spirit of the title of the discussion, Decentralized World, decentralized is a topic that’s where I’m most active in crypto, that crypto people love, so I’ll put it there. But the question I have now for the panel, and I’m not gonna go through, according to the panel. order, so anyone who has something to say.

But what kind of values, based on what you just said, what kind of values will help Europe drive forward its type of humanitarian, humanity approach based to technology, particularly in the eye of scale and speed of AI?

Any ideas? You know, decentralization, open source, transparency, I don’t know, rule of law, but maybe some of you can share what you think is important for Europe that we need to maintain versus anarchy, as you just nicely put it.

And any ideas?

Ravina Mutha

I mean, to me, I can go first. It’s really about transparency, as you said, but also traceability and trust. I mean, I think that’s kind of intrinsic.

You talked a little bit about brain and brawn, and you know, the US is usually the loudest one in the room. But at the end of the day, when you talk also about opportunities for smaller companies like us, the reason they exist today is because at some point, the brain really comes into the picture, because you tend to lose trust.

When AI is everywhere, AI is a part of everything you do, and people are just hard-selling some kind of AI. At some point, somebody needs to come in with the right values, as with the new Swiss LLM, kind of, you know, making a point that you are actually using all of these tools, yes, for some great use cases with not too much of, you know, thoughtfulness for the future, but without actually checking whether those data sources are vetted.

So I think it really goes into this kind of transparency, trust, but also ethical values, data biases. And I think those are things that are not just talked about in Europe, but that’s the brand value of who we are. So I think that that would really go a long way, because at some point, people are going to lose trust in tools that don’t respect privacy.

I mean, opening up your social media profiles to apply, to get a U.S. visa, ridiculous. I mean, I haven’t faced it myself, but I heard from some colleagues.

That’s an absolute infringement on privacy, and at some point the West is going to catch up.

Alexander E. Brunner

Alessandro?

Alessandro Curioni

Yeah, I didn’t know what she was saying and what I told at the beginning. I do believe that, you know, transparency or openness are crucial. Second thing, you know, sometimes, most of the time, being second or, you know, in a world that changes super-duper fast, not being the first, gives you additional possibility to do the things better and in a much more thoughtful way.

Okay? And I do believe that Europe has this possibility if decided, you know, I will not say do a step back, but slow down a little bit, not compete with the same, in the same way, with the same rules, you know, that were the first movers, and try to do things a little bit better.

And it’s super important now, because as you were saying and thinking, you know, also the spirit of the panel, the decentralized nature of these things, and also the fact that technology compounds one on top of the other, the interaction of everything is happening is also a very important thing.

We make a huge mistake if we focus only on one. We speak about AI, but, you know, you have AI, you have data, you have stable coins, you will have quantum computing that enter and make a difference. Quantum computing breaking cryptography, you know, you change completely the full value chain on the data.

Today, we operate thinking something is encrypted, everything is inside, it’s safe, you know, you can leave that and you can take because you cannot use, but if you break the encryption, all this data and the value chain of this data.

So. step back, thinking about how the full things interact and trying to do the right things, probably is the right thing to compete and eventually win.

Alexander E. Brunner

I’m feeling, Courtney, I want to ask you, because you see both sides. You work for a large US company that’s also active in Europe. Do you see the different approaches?

Are you like, is that a two-sided approach, one for Europe and one for America? How do you experience this in your work?

Courtney Bowman

I’m not going to answer your question. I’m going to answer the question I want to answer, which I think touches on kind of what you’re driving at. Because I think one of the critical problems that comes up in this question of what value should Europe be driving towards in the prospect of decentralization is what’s the place of sovereignty?

What’s the place of digital sovereignty, of a technical stack that can be run independently of foreign influence? And I think this is a very important question. I think Europe needs to rigorously interrogate because the idea of reconstituting every part of the digital stack from hardware layer all the way up to frontier models, to all the supporting infrastructure that makes AI work is to be realistic and impossible proposition.

Europe will not be able to reconstitute all of those elements. And Europe and the rest of the world needs to come to terms with that reality. If it’s going to have a sane approach to how it deals with the challenges of the future, let alone what’s happening today.

So what does that mean? My supposition is maybe there are ways of breaking down what digital sovereignty actually amounts to. And it probably has more to do with things like decision-making autonomy and preserving the sanctity of European information, of consumers, of citizens in Europe.

Those things seem to be central values that need to be upheld. And those are things that can be upheld by building on the existing technology infrastructure. But we need to move away from the idea.

that Europe alone is going to be able in singular lanes, even at the country level, reconstitute all the technical stack. Instead, what they should be doing is building on the components of the technology stack that work, that preserve those critical elements of decision-making autonomy, of data sanctity, and using that to leapfrog to the next level of innovation.

I think that’s the best way that Europe becomes a prominent player in the digital economy of tomorrow.

Alexander E. Brunner

Maybe I’ll take one more statement, but after that, I’ll take a question from the audience. There’s one online. Okay.

After that, we take one online. Anyone else wants to respond to that? In summary, you’re sort of a bit agreeing with President Trump that America will sort of deliver a lot of the tech stack, and Europe cannot decouple, and I agree with that, sort of.

But any other response from Armando? Yes.

Armando Geller

I mean, as a company, we’re building multi-agent simulations, and there’s one thing to that, which is they’re never entirely bottom-up, and they’re never entirely top-down. The same thing, in my opinion, also should be a guiding principle to how we should deal with policy. We should have a bottom-up approach, however that looks like, that is nurturing some kind of a top level that could be governmental, but also large organization, big industry, and vice versa.

There should be a process that basically trickles down to lower levels, whether that’s civil society, whether these are smaller companies. And I think the magical word, Alexander, is already in the title of this panel, which is decentralized. I’m a strong believer in decentralization as a principle, however it looks like.

And I’ll reiterate my previous point. I think, unfortunately, we’re steering or are already in a conflict of civilizations. I don’t want to call it war of civilizations.

And in this in this conflict of civilizations, there is a precedent. And we already won it once in 89 slash 89 slash 91 with a decentralized approach against a centralized opponent. And I think we are in a similar setting currently.

And I think the decentralized way, for me, at least, is a more promising approach.

Alexander E. Brunner

Should we take an online question?

Online moderator

Yes, so the conversation online has been very lively. One of the most voted questions is the following. In many countries, a significant amount of misinformation is spreading through AI generated images.

So people are further amplifying this content on social media platforms. In this context, how should governments manage AI generated misinformation within an appropriate legal and policy framework? Moreover, during elections, AI is increasingly being used to influence or even brainwash people.

How can such risks be addressed through lawful mechanisms and effective AI governance?

Alexander E. Brunner

In a short nutshell, how can you fake news in a wider sense of images? How can that be addressed through governance? That sounds like a question for someone who deals with the EU or no, or anyone else.

I don’t want to put you on the spot.

Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

I, again, here is one of those questions related to the fact of, do you need regulation in order to apply a system of prevention of deepfakes? I mean, together with one of the members of the audience, we wrote a huge article about deepfakes and what is actually… today really needed about this.

And yes, regulation is therefore preventing those. Now, the point is not just regulation, but how you actually enable the capacity of having the authority to go through the social medias that are actually now responsible for the generation of fake news.

And this is one of those basic examples. I mean, with the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, or actually the aggression of Russia towards Ukraine, we are flooded by fake news, and especially during elections, we have been facing this over and over in the last few years.

But then you have someone that comes in and is actually the promoter of fake news by itself, and is deregulating the possibility of spreading fake news all over the world. And we go into the, again, into the world of anarchy. So in this, I really stand on the fact that we have the means and the capacity to go for something that reacts on this.

I think that we started using the control of fake news for bullies in what was Facebook years ago, and actually had a huge impact on the wellbeing of kids. When the very first rallying of bullies were there in social media, I remember the Italian police, using capacities to prevent those messages to spread. And we have advancement legislation right now on porn revenge, which is, again, extremely brutal.

Is this the way? Yes. I believe that this is where we should aim at, because we live, again, as you were saying, we have the rules.

They are there. The only thing is, are we respecting those rules just in a matter of who is the most powerful one in order to be able to respect them? Or we abide to the fact that we need, as a world society, to respect them?

Alexander E. Brunner

Maybe one observation, and I’ll take your response.

Alessandro Curioni

Yeah, look, I do believe that one has to be very, very careful, right? Because when you limit the ability of people to express, then it’s bad. And on the other hand, you have to leave to people, give to people, the ability to understand the authenticity of what has been said, you know?

And it’s almost impossible today, right, to do this, that somebody go and check. So the only solution for something like this may look strange are still technological solutions. So if we are able at least to make sure that this news came from that person and was not fake, this is already a big step forward.

But you can do this at scale only through technology. There is no other way.

Alexander E. Brunner

I mean, at the moment, the EU is probing different big tech companies exactly about that. There is an ongoing investigation. When I listen to the US side, I recently listened to Pavel Durov, who’s the founder of Telegram.

He gave a big interview on Lex Friedman, the podcast. And he basically gave. it came forward with the argument you hear all the time.

The argument is this, there’s a lot of fake news. We do a lot every day. We’re doing as much as we can.

And there’s so much we can’t do more. So don’t blame us. And then you see Mark Zuckerberg sitting next to President Trump in the White House.

And you know, he’s not going to be pushed into that direction. So that’s just, I think, the tension there is. And it relates a bit to this brawn against brains.

Europe is like intellectually from value, we want to understand and regulate. And America’s like, well, we’re just scale and speed. But maybe we take one more question before we go for coffee break.

Anyone in the audience? Audience is quiet. Oh, yes.

You got to pick up the mic.

Audience

So from my readings, from my conversations with professors and readings of research in Europe and the US, what I see is a big mismatch in perspective in terms of the strategic actions of the USA and the EU.

It appears to me, also hearing from today, that our current consensus is based on a different view of the world. So we are speaking as if we were still in the era of the previous Pax Americana, where the protection of our values of our human rights of our societies was the primary goal. But currently, as we are in the global bifurcation of the system, well, there is a there is a high likelihood that the landscape has largely changed, and that the well, that, excuse me, that we perhaps need to change our priorities.

in order to correctly understand the challenges in front of us. So what do you think about this perspective? Thank you.

Alexander E. Brunner

You’ve been alluding to the brawn against brains, you know, that maybe Europe has been very much involved in being a good player, global citizen values, and America has now a more robust approach, like the winning bit.

Is that… Everyone’s happy with European approach.

Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

I think that there needs to be a vision. And this is one of the things that we lack, in general terms. I think that we have multiple visions, country per country.

If I reference to what you were saying before, is we live in a decentralized era, but at the same time, the US is such a large market that actually can stand alone. European countries are not. So one of the things I connect back to the Draghi report is we need to challenge the inefficacies of how we do internally build the European market, and we challenge the European market, and we apply not state sovereign policies, but Europe sovereign policies, in a way.

The idea that we need to still be based on interoperability and cooperation is one of the drivers that we need to take. And I think that is the game changer of the vision that we need to take in front of us in order to actually not compete, because we cannot take the race. We need to take a different approach.

Alexander E. Brunner

That’s, in a way, a very good summary. I think it is an interesting time that Europe has to summarize. We have to think what kind of values are important, and do those values facilitate competing the AI race or technology race when you’re confronted with speed and scale from either U.S.

or China. With that, I’d like to thank you, my panel. I think this topic will keep us busy going forward.

It will not go away. And we now have a coffee break.

Alexander E. Brunner

Speech speed

164 words per minute

Speech length

Geopolitical Power Dynamics in AI

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Disagreed with

– Alessandro Curioni
– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

Disagreed on

Role and effectiveness of governance in the AI age

Alessandro Curioni

Speech speed

132 words per minute

Speech length

718 words

Speech time

324 seconds

Openness and transparency are key to preventing AI from becoming purely geopolitical warfare

Explanation

Curioni believes that driving AI development in open and transparent ways is essential to ensure positive impact and minimize negative consequences. He argues that without this approach, AI will become merely a tool for geopolitical competition, leading to closed, non-transparent systems worldwide.

Evidence

Warning about the risk of closed AI systems if countries simply try to compete in the same manner

Major discussion point

European Values vs. American Innovation Approach

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Agreed with

– Ravina Mutha

Agreed on

Need for transparency and openness in AI development

Governance needs to change rapidly to align with AI development speed

Explanation

While disagreeing that governance is dead, Curioni acknowledges that governance and regulation must evolve significantly to keep pace with AI developments. He emphasizes the need for governance systems that can adapt quickly to technological changes.

Evidence

Courtney Bowman

Speech speed

171 words per minute

Speech length

862 words

Speech time

302 seconds

EU regulation takes a sophisticated risk-based approach rather than fixating on current technology

Explanation

Bowman argues that while the EU is often criticized for over-regulation, it actually takes a sophisticated approach focused on identifying and tracking risk at the systems level. This approach looks at how AI integrates with broader technology and social systems rather than regulating based on current technological capabilities.

Evidence

Comparison between EU’s risk-based approach and US’s ‘Wild West’ approach, reference to Brussels effect and GDPR playbook

Major discussion point

European Values vs. American Innovation Approach

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Europe cannot reconstitute the entire digital stack and must build on existing infrastructure

Explanation

Bowman argues that the idea of Europe rebuilding every component of the digital stack from hardware to frontier models is unrealistic and impossible. Instead, Europe should focus on preserving critical values like decision-making autonomy and data sanctity while building on existing technology infrastructure.

Evidence

Recognition of the complexity and impossibility of recreating all digital infrastructure components

Major discussion point

Geopolitical Power Dynamics in AI

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Agreed with

– Alessandro Curioni
– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

Agreed on

Europe cannot compete by simply copying US approaches

Disagreed with

– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini
– Audience

Disagreed on

Europe’s strategic positioning in global AI competition

Armando Geller

Speech speed

123 words per minute

Speech length

445 words

Speech time

216 seconds

Laws still apply in armed conflict even in the AI age

Explanation

Geller firmly states that existing laws of armed conflict remain valid and applicable even with AI integration in military contexts. He considers this a fundamental principle that should not be questioned or abandoned.

Evidence

Agreed with

– Alexander E. Brunner

Agreed on

Decentralization as a key organizing principle

Bottom-up and top-down policy approaches should work together through decentralization

Explanation

Drawing from multi-agent simulation principles, Geller argues that effective policy should combine bottom-up approaches (from civil society and smaller companies) with top-down approaches (from government and large organizations). He emphasizes decentralization as the key organizing principle.

Evidence

Analogy to multi-agent simulations that are never entirely bottom-up or top-down

Major discussion point

AI Governance and Regulation Challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Alexander E. Brunner

Agreed on

Decentralization as a key organizing principle

Ravina Mutha

Speech speed

183 words per minute

Speech length

650 words

Speech time

212 seconds

Europe should focus on transparency, traceability, and trust as core brand values

Explanation

Mutha argues that Europe’s competitive advantage lies in building tools that are resilient by design, emphasizing transparency, trust, and ethical values. She believes these represent Europe’s brand value and will become increasingly important as AI scales rapidly.

Evidence

Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

Speech speed

118 words per minute

Speech length

1211 words

Speech time

611 seconds

Generative AI models initially produced high levels of bias and only 45-50% truth rates

Explanation

Le Fevre Cervini describes how early generative AI models produced significant gender and race bias with very low accuracy rates. He references work from the Yale Lab in Buenos Aires, including a book called ‘ChargePT Imperfect by Design’ that documented these issues.

Evidence

Yale Lab’s Promethea AI system requiring 97% threshold for public sector use, documentation of bias in early generative models

Major discussion point

Trust and Transparency in AI Systems

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

AI governance is necessary for trust and to avoid societal anarchy

Explanation

Le Fevre Cervini argues that society needs rules and governance to maintain trust and avoid anarchy, even in the face of rapid technological change. He emphasizes that we are still a governed society that should not choose anarchy for the sake of economic growth.

Evidence

Disagreed with

– Courtney Bowman
– Audience

Disagreed on

Europe’s strategic positioning in global AI competition

Online moderator

Speech speed

146 words per minute

Speech length

87 words

Speech time

35 seconds

Online question raised concerns about AI-generated misinformation during elections

Explanation

The online moderator presented a question from the audience about the spread of AI-generated misinformation through images on social media platforms. The question specifically addressed concerns about AI being used to influence or brainwash people during elections and asked how such risks could be addressed through legal mechanisms.

Evidence

Reference to AI-generated images spreading misinformation and election interference

Major discussion point

AI-Generated Misinformation and Content Control

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Audience

Speech speed

115 words per minute

Speech length

157 words

Speech time

81 seconds

Europe may need to change priorities due to global system bifurcation rather than maintaining previous approaches

Explanation

An audience member suggested that there is a mismatch in strategic perspectives between the US and EU, arguing that the current consensus is based on an outdated worldview. They proposed that Europe may need to change its priorities to correctly understand current challenges.

Evidence

Reference to global bifurcation of the system and changing geopolitical landscape

Major discussion point

Strategic Priorities in Changing Global Order

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Disagreed with

– Courtney Bowman
– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

Disagreed on

Europe’s strategic positioning in global AI competition

Current consensus may be based on outdated worldview from previous Pax Americana era

Explanation

The audience member argued that current European thinking is still based on the previous Pax Americana era, where protection of values and human rights was the primary goal. They suggest this worldview may no longer be appropriate given the changed global landscape.

Evidence

Reference to the era of previous Pax Americana and its different priorities

Major discussion point

Strategic Priorities in Changing Global Order

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Agreements

Agreement points

Need for transparency and openness in AI development

Speakers

– Alessandro Curioni
– Ravina Mutha

Bottom-up and top-down policy approaches should work together through decentralization

We are in a conflict of civilizations similar to 1989-1991, requiring decentralized approaches

Summary

Both speakers advocate for decentralization as a fundamental principle for organizing policy and competition, with Geller drawing on multi-agent simulation principles and historical precedents

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Acceptance of US technological dominance while advocating for European differentiation

Speakers

– Courtney Bowman
– Alessandro Curioni
– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

Arguments

Europe cannot reconstitute the entire digital stack and must build on existing infrastructure

Being second allows Europe to do things better and more thoughtfully

Europe needs a vision based on cooperation and interoperability rather than individual country policies

Explanation

Surprisingly, speakers including a US tech company representative agree that Europe should not try to compete directly with US tech dominance but should instead focus on its own strengths and approaches. This consensus suggests a pragmatic acceptance of technological realities while still advocating for European values and methods

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Technology-based solutions for misinformation rather than purely regulatory approaches

Speakers

– Alessandro Curioni
– Ravina Mutha

Arguments

Technological solutions are needed to verify authenticity at scale rather than limiting expression

Building resilient tools by design gives Europe a competitive edge

Explanation

Despite the panel’s focus on European values and regulation, there’s unexpected consensus that technological solutions are necessary for addressing misinformation challenges, suggesting that even values-focused approaches must be technologically sophisticated

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show strong consensus on the need for governance adaptation, transparency principles, and European differentiation from US approaches. There’s agreement that Europe should leverage its values-based approach as a competitive advantage rather than trying to replicate US methods.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with constructive disagreement on implementation methods. This suggests a mature understanding of the challenges and a realistic assessment of Europe’s position in the global AI landscape. The implications are positive for European AI strategy development, as there’s broad agreement on core principles while maintaining healthy debate on specific approaches.

Differences

Different viewpoints

Role and effectiveness of governance in the AI age

Speakers

– Alexander E. Brunner
– Alessandro Curioni
– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

Arguments

Policy in the UN style is dead unless backed by might and power

Governance needs to change rapidly to align with AI development speed

AI governance is necessary for trust and to avoid societal anarchy

Summary

Brunner argues that traditional policy approaches are dead in the AI age unless backed by power, while Curioni believes governance needs to evolve but isn’t dead, and Le Fevre Cervini strongly advocates for governance as essential to prevent societal anarchy

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Approach to combating AI-generated misinformation

Speakers

– Alessandro Curioni
– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini

Arguments

Technological solutions are needed to verify authenticity at scale rather than limiting expression

Regulation is needed to prevent deepfakes and control social media responsibility for fake news

Summary

Curioni advocates for technological solutions while warning against limiting expression, whereas Le Fevre Cervini calls for regulatory approaches and holding social media platforms accountable

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Europe’s strategic positioning in global AI competition

Speakers

– Courtney Bowman
– Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini
– Audience

Arguments

Europe cannot reconstitute the entire digital stack and must build on existing infrastructure

Europe needs a vision based on cooperation and interoperability rather than individual country policies

Europe may need to change priorities due to global system bifurcation rather than maintaining previous approaches

Summary

Bowman suggests Europe should accept dependence on existing (largely American) infrastructure, Le Fevre Cervini advocates for unified European cooperation, while the audience member questions whether Europe’s entire approach needs fundamental revision

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Takeaways

Key takeaways

AI has fundamentally shifted geopolitical power dynamics, with tech companies now partnering directly with countries rather than corporations, making traditional UN-style policy approaches obsolete without backing power

Europe cannot compete by trying to recreate the entire AI/digital technology stack independently and must instead focus on building upon existing infrastructure while preserving core values like decision-making autonomy and data sanctity

The fundamental tension exists between American ‘brawn’ (speed, scale, dominance) and European ‘brain’ (values, governance, thoughtful regulation) approaches to AI development

Openness, transparency, and trust are essential European values that can provide competitive advantage in AI, as people will eventually lose trust in tools that don’t respect privacy and ethical standards

AI governance must evolve rapidly to match the speed of technological development, requiring both bottom-up and top-down decentralized approaches rather than traditional centralized regulation

Being second in the AI race may actually advantage Europe by allowing more thoughtful, better-integrated approaches that consider the interaction of AI with other technologies like quantum computing and blockchain

Europe needs a unified vision and sovereign policies at the European level rather than fragmented country-by-country approaches to effectively compete in the global AI landscape

Resolutions and action items

None identified – this was a panel discussion focused on analysis and perspective-sharing rather than decision-making

Unresolved issues

How to effectively combat AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes during elections while preserving freedom of expression

Whether Europe’s values-based approach can realistically compete with the speed and scale advantages of American and Chinese AI development

How to balance the need for rapid AI governance adaptation with thorough, thoughtful regulation

What specific mechanisms Europe should use to achieve digital sovereignty while remaining dependent on foreign technology infrastructure

How to implement decentralized governance approaches in practice across diverse European countries with different priorities

Whether the current global bifurcation requires Europe to fundamentally change its priorities from values-protection to power-competition

How to build effective technological solutions for content authenticity verification at the scale needed to combat misinformation

Suggested compromises

Europe should focus on preserving core values (decision-making autonomy, data sanctity) while building on existing American/global technology infrastructure rather than trying to recreate everything independently

Combine bottom-up and top-down policy approaches through decentralized governance structures that allow flexibility while maintaining coordination

Use technological solutions rather than restrictive regulation to address misinformation – enabling people to verify authenticity rather than limiting expression

Europe should leverage being ‘second’ as an advantage to develop more thoughtful, integrated approaches rather than trying to match American speed and scale directly

This comment identifies a fundamental structural challenge – that European fragmentation undermines competitiveness regardless of values or approaches. It suggests that the real issue isn’t values vs. power, but scale and coordination, pointing toward concrete institutional solutions.

Impact

This observation helped crystallize why European approaches struggle and provided a concrete path forward through better integration. It moved the discussion from philosophical debates about values to practical questions about institutional design and market structure.

Overall assessment

Explanation

The need for European-level rather than national-level AI strategies was identified as crucial for competing with larger unified markets like the US

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.