“There is no stop in the clock. There is no mercy. There is no break.” Thomas Regnier, a spokesman for the European Commission, said in response to a break from the EU's AI Act. These pioneering rules for artificial intelligence are then introduced in accordance with the timeline specified in legislation. The EC will ignore calls of 46 CEOs on the entire continent to stop legislation for two years – including me.
This will surprise some people. My company, Kayrros, was the first in the world to persecute and attributed Methane worldwide. We were quoted when John Kerry announced the global methane promise, and we played a role in the design of the Methane network of EU 2024. We worked with countless organizations to monitor greenhouse gas emissions and other climate events – for example the deforestation and spread of forest fires – and numerous companies that want to reduce their CO2 footprint. Un-regulated AI certainly means an explosion of energy consumption and the creation of fuel-hungry data centers?
Here is my concern. The European Commission, in its zeal to pass the first large piece of AI regulation – and for the best reasons, as I should add – the wood is missing for the trees. Yes, we need guardrails. Yes, we need AI to be ethically and humanly centered. Yes, AI is powerful, and powerful technologies have a way to develop in an unpredictable way. And yes, less regulation means more AI use, which means more energy consumption. But the AI act is still a mistake.
First, the AI will make the industries considerably more efficient and reduce emissions in the coming years. As Jensen Huang von Nvidia pointed out to thisAfter creating AI models, the models carry out far more efficiently than conventional computer methods. For example, an AI weather model can predict more than the 1,000 -more efficient times than conventional techniques. So always what energy is invested in AI and is repaid with changes because the model is reused.
Due to the recent developments in the AI, such as the creation of increasingly sophisticated large-scale models (LLMS) and remote-sensing foundation models (RSFMS), data analyzes that once lasted only hours. In my work, this means an almost real analysis of satellite images, so that we can predict exceptional things such as floods and forest fires in order to enable enormous cost savings and possibly even prevent life in the hands of the emergency services.
The 💜 the EU technology
The latest rumors from the EU -Tech scene, a story of our wise old founder Boris and some questionable KI art. It is free of charge every week in your inbox. Register now!
But as my colleagues at BNP Paribas, Axa, Siemens and countless other known names have convincingly argued, the real fear of the AI law is that it will annoy our ability to compete in the world's most consistent technological area worldwide. Do not think that the world powers will have the same concerns that we do in Europe. You will go to the future, as you have in other critical areas such as space, and create such a distance that it will be more difficult for us to catch up. This is not what we need: Europe is flooded with world-class talents who want to make the continent a AI superpower.
Here, too, there is a lack of clarity. Startup founders in particular are rightly concerned about how general AI models are regulated. What if there is a patchwork of different rules in different member states? Is it not easier for the large, wealthy US tech companies to navigate them than smaller companies whose bags are not so deep? The fear of violating the rules – and with high punishments – could prevent startups from developing and using AI. This is the last thing we want. They are those who are best placed to move quickly and break things.
The defense case here is as strong as the economic. The global balance of power is shifting, and Europe – as the latest obligation to increase expenses to 5% of GDP – is aware of its need to recover. Ask everyone in the defense sector and he will emphasize the role that data, software and technological innovations are now in conflict. AI cannot be divorced. The risk here is that we develop our attempts to develop a modern combat power that is able to keep peace on the continent and to protect European interests and values. AI is not only an area of the global economy, but also the type of technology, which soon underlies almost every sector.
I am not against the AI regulation in any form. But I signed the open letter because I believe that we are far too hasty and through our willingness to regulate the softness, economic security, technological refinement and the military strength of our continent.
Comments are closed.