Clashing visions for AI at the Paris Summit

At the Paris AI Summit—often regarded as the Davos of the AI community—global leaders presented starkly contrasting visions for the future of artificial intelligence. There are Clashing visions for AI at the Paris Summit.

On the US side, a speech by Vance left no doubt that America sees AI as a geopolitical tool, fully intended for weaponisation. He declared, “AI is a weapon that’s dangerous in the wrong hands, but an incredible tool for liberty and prosperity in the right hands.” Vance warned that the US would maintain its AI dominance by restricting access to every component across the AI stack, ensuring that only US-built systems reach the highest levels of power. He cautioned that any attempt by other countries to restrict US tech companies would be a grave mistake, and dismissed efforts at multilateral collaboration, arguing instead that US energy and resources are essential to powering AI. He also stressed that AI must remain free of ideological bias—meaning it should promote an ideology he endorses.

Meanwhile, European leaders took a markedly different approach at the summit. This year, the event shifted its focus from AI safety to cutting red tape, accelerating innovation, and boosting investments, following the implementation of the EU AI Act on 2 February. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a €200 billion investment in AI, emphasising that, despite claims that Europe is late to the race, the frontier of AI is constantly evolving and global leadership remains contested. Von der Leyen outlined Europe’s strategy to leverage its rich industrial and scientific heritage and to develop open-source AI systems through cooperative efforts.

French President Emmanuel Macron, co-hosting the summit with India, pledged to invest €109 billion in AI projects over the coming years. Macron urged France to “invest, invest, invest,” highlighting its decades-old nuclear power plants as a competitive advantage in powering AI infrastructure. He stressed that reducing bureaucratic red tape was essential for remaining competitive in the global race for AI.

Notably, both the US and UK declined to sign a new international AI declaration—endorsed by 60 countries including France, China, and India—citing concerns over insufficient clarity on global governance and national security risks.

These divergent approaches underscore a fundamental global divide. While the US is determined to weaponise AI to secure geopolitical dominance, Europe is striving for a collaborative, open-source model that promotes innovation and public good. As both sides invest billions in AI infrastructure and technology, the battle for global leadership in artificial intelligence is set to intensify, with profound implications for international security, economic growth, and technological progress.

If you need further proof that the US views AI as a geopolitical tool destined for weaponisation, watch Vance’s speech at the Paris AI Summit

He explicitly states, “AI is a weapon that’s dangerous in the wrong hands, but is an incredible tool for liberty and prosperity in the right hands.”

The rest of his address is both menacing and stark:

• He asserts that American AI will remain dominant, claiming, “The United States of America is the leader in AI, and our administration plans to keep it that way.”
• To achieve this, he promises to restrict access to “all components across the full AI stack” to ensure that the most powerful AI systems are developed in the US, and to “close pathways to adversaries attaining AI capabilities” comparable to those of the US.
• He warned the assembly that it would be “a terrible mistake for your own countries” to tighten restrictions on US tech companies, a clear threat.
• He essentially dismisses any attempt by the global community to adopt a collaborative multilateral approach to AI; notably, the US, alongside the UK, was the only country not to sign the closing declaration at the summit.
• He told the audience they would need US energy to power AI, deriding efforts towards energy self-reliance.
• He emphasised that “AI must remain free from ideological bias,” meaning it should propagate an ideology he approves of – as illustrated by his remark that it would be ideologically incorrect for AI to portray George Washington as black.

Much like the early internet, AI has the potential to bridge divides and unite the world. Yet, the US appears resolute in preventing this, taking a chilling stance on a technology that could eventually surpass human intelligence—perhaps the one innovation that most urgently needs to be developed as a shared human endeavour rather than a tool for dominance.