Download full text PDF
As Europe’s nascent industrial policy on AI gains steady momentum, with significant public and private funding earmarked and the potential to shape regulatory measures, critical evaluation of these efforts will require public scrutiny. This requires discussion. That’s where this report steps in. Ask tough questions about resource allocation in these early strategies and the process by which priorities are determined. And most fundamentally, consider the assumptions underlying this vision.
How will the market structure for large-scale AI impact traditional strategies for achieving digital independence? Is Europe’s technological dependence on a few powerful incumbents recoverable, or will dependence on Is it structural? Is there a solid evidence base to support claims of long-term benefits of AI, such as increased productivity and the potential for breakthrough science? Is public investment in AI inconsistent with Europe’s social model and sustainability goals? Could a narrow focus on AI in public investment in technology lead to infrastructure lock-in?Public services Will the efficient delivery of AI tools require rapid deployment in sensitive social areas, or will it cause more concerns than benefits?
A collection of essays and interviews with leading experts, this book brings together policy research, perspectives and evidence on the pitfalls and challenges associated with expanding public investment in the context of a highly concentrated global AI market. It is intended to be provided to planners. It also outlines possible future paths for competition, public digital infrastructure, digital industry and innovation policy more broadly. We will also explore what the dependence on European incumbents is and how competitive the European AI market really is. Although the authors have different positions, backgrounds, and politics on these issues, they agree that the tools and approaches of the past are not fit for purpose.
1. A public interest vision for AI in Europe
The EU’s AI strategy needs a coherent public interest vision to move beyond the ill-defined and narrow motives of sovereignty and competitiveness. This starts with rigorously scrutinizing the assumptions that investments in AI will lead to social and economic benefits in the first place, including the widespread (but empirically contested) claims of increased productivity. Must be.
2. Industrial policy should challenge, rather than entrench, existing concentrations of power in the AI stack.
At a minimum, industrial policy should be designed to avoid exacerbating the concentration of power in the AI stack by funneling public funds to companies that already dominate the market.
3. Large-scale AI conflicts with Europe’s climate goals
The current trajectory of large-scale AI has serious climate implications and could lead to tensions that are incompatible with Europe’s environmental and green transition goals.
4. Conditioning industrial policy is essential to ensure public interest.
Access to public funds and other public resources (including land, water and energy) must be conditioned to ensure outcomes that serve the broader public interest. This includes accountability, climate, working conditions and standards. Conditional conditions must be developed through a participatory process involving civil society, trade unions and affected communities, with guarantees of transparency over the implementation of conditional conditions.
5. Industrial policy must not encourage the uncritical application of AI to sensitive social areas
Encouraging full-scale adoption of AI in the public sector could hollow out the state, waste public funds, or lead to the hollowing out of the state, especially if deployed in high-risk situations or in ways that are inconsistent with AI’s inherent limitations. Single point of failure, potentially leading to rights violations.
6. Innovation thrives on bold regulatory enforcement.
Rather than pitting innovation against regulation, investment in industrial policy should proceed in parallel with bold regulatory enforcement, with the goal of shaping innovation in the public interest.
7. Europe’s place in the world: EU trade and industrial policy will have global ramifications
In what is seen as a struggle for survival over geopolitical influence and competitiveness with the United States and China, and amid concerns about European subordination, Europe is wondering how its policy direction will shape the situation. We must not lose sight of the various methods. It is possible not only for the EU but also for the rest of the world. In particular, neoliberal approaches to digital trade policy can stifle ambitious industrial policy strategies that prioritize people and planet.
Neither incremental change nor large-scale investments in predetermined innovation trajectories are in the public interest. Rather, Europe’s technology and innovation policy needs a fundamental reset. Europe must grapple with existential questions about the direction and nature of its digital future. Answering these questions requires abandoning the comfortable, established talking points, superficial analyzes and bland statements that stand in for serious debate about what technopolitics could be. there is.
What kind of (digital) future does Europe want? What role can and should AI technology play in this future? Who will have a say in determining the course?
