AI and Geopolitics – The Overlap of Policy, Politics, Business and Tech Leadership in the US, Europe, China and the World

I’m not sure the world needs one more pontification about AI. Suffice it to say, like all tech revolutions, it is somewhat overestimated in the short run and significantly underestimated for the long run. At the same time, we are in utterly new waters without precedence.

“This is the fastest consumer adopted technology in history” or “this may be as big as mobile or the internet or whatever previous tech” is a clear warning tell for me that the speaker is understandably seeking analogy and not understanding what is happening.

We are in the earliest pitches of the earliest inning. When the tech leaders of all this came to Washington recently, I took a few around to meet senior policy friends. One said almost parenthetically, “Throughout recent history new technology moves exponentially and then appears to level off – I’m seeing not even a sign of that here, in fact I see acceleration.” Another, “It’s pretty clear we know what GPT 5 will look like, even GPT 6. Anyone who says they have a clue what GPT 7 will be is lying.”

We have technology making technology. That about says it all.

I experienced when in journalism, and what I have long seen in Washington, how stove piped we become among central actors and decision makers. There is this thing called “policy” which is somehow noble and intellectual; over there is something called “politics” which is unseemly and gossipy but necessary to have policy; over there is something called “business” which is all profit motive, if not venal; and WAY over there is something called “tech” which is about some “change the world” hubris.

In fact, and never more than now, the Venn diagram among these has never been greater and understanding how they interconnect on their terms and can co-author solutions is essential in society generally, but certainly in getting our minds and hands around AI.

I have turned my attention to this overlap, especially globally, and it has been eye opening to say the least. Each actor moves to their immediate incentives; understanding of what is happening on the ground is too often limited or absent; narrative bias reigns; our in-boxes are too full to think beyond the next week; and, thus, medium to long term strategic thinking are all but absent.

But we must keep at it.

Last month I was in Paris and had a sit down with a wonderful leader in AI previously at JP Morgan and now with Mozilla AI, Victor Storchan . He understands these shifts well and contributes to a new publication for a new generation of policy makers, business and tech leaders and thinkers Le Grand Continent .

The TL; DR is:

- the strategic/geopolitical importance of mastering AI innovation and infrastructure as a key to global leadership and all future interaction.

- the emergence of new AI players/competitors beyond US and China like India and the UAE and how they increasingly cooperate with China and beyond.

- the opportunities for US-EU normative co-authorship on AI and tech innovation with potentially boosting spill-over effects on education and the economy.

- the dual impact of AI on fake news: both an accelerator of fake news and a huge potential for identifying/tackling them.

- that collectively we have a choice to focus on the extraordinary opportunities, not only any risks, and to do so strategically for the medium and long term.

Our original chat can be in found in French here – and I had it translated and gently edited for context (yes in part through GPT 4, but not exclusively) as follows:

What does the world of AI look like? This is precisely the question answered by Christopher Schroeder, former CEO of washingtonpost.com and healthcentral.com , essayist, and tech investor globally and in Silicon Valley. From the evolution of Sino-American rivalry to the future of information, he provides insights into the trends that are already shaping our world.

Will AI accentuate technological disparities and the segmentation of a world compared to what we have known before? Is it relevant to speak of European, Chinese, or American AI?

The ready-made answer is that it is still very early to have a retrospective analysis, but there is no doubt that there is at least a very American approach and a very Chinese approach – and they will likely be setting the rules of the road globally technologically. Policy and regulation will be another matter as countries and regions are stepping up. It is unclear as we’ve seen in underlying infrastructure (5g, cloud computing capabilities etc.) if there will be possibilities for interconnection and how.

In the end AI leadership is very much about massive financial capital, massive access to energy and GPU, and the best world class talent. The United States and China have a huge advantage in this field, but other countries could surprise us.

I asked the same question to someone heavily involved at a high level in AI in the United States. He agreed but added that, in his opinion, there would be surprises. Besides London and the UK, with its prominent universities—Cambridge, Oxford, etc.— and companies like DeepMind, and India, we should keep an eye on United Arab Emirates. I closely followed the UAE in my work in the field of technology and innovation. They were, of course, the first country to have a Minister of AI. A few years ago, this was considered almost na?ve or about publicity, but, in fact, it was extremely visionary. The minister was the real driving force behind efforts there and globally. They have the money, energy, and resources and do not have a narrow vision of AI sovereignty to geography. For example, sovereignty to the UAE (unlike much of the world) isn’t just about geographic, historic and cultural borders, but the very act of they are welcoming talent from around the world -- to attract the best AI thinkers globally to become a hub in this field. It's a fascinating strategic choice to acknowledge that sovereignty cannot be simply defined by geographic nationality in the coming world.

Are you concerned about a potential divergence between the United States and Europe in terms of regulation and standards? Do you think this could harm the global AI ecosystem in the short term?

We talk about shared competitiveness as key in the world today, rightly so, but competition means not always agreeing. It's about knowing who we are competing with. Often, competitiveness is thought of as simply a matter of opposition between the United States or the West, and China. However, there is competition among all sovereign nations, which implies disagreement. I believe we need to accept this reality. It is then essential to realize that, in the new world we live in, the best way to find common ground is through a new kind of co-authorship – here’s our interests, here’s where we agree, here’s where we don’t, where we do agree is a large and wide space so let’s have at it.

One thing clear in my travels is people everywhere are asking whether they want to witness once again American technology setting the rules for the entire world. Technology is anywhere, talent is everywhere, and countries have more choices – China and beyond. I believe American leadership will be more powerful and relevant in these new realities if it makes room for co-authorship. I think it is entirely understandable that Europe and certain European countries consider it might be time to seek different paths on core issues. But I think when it comes to the unique aspects of AI, thoughtful, considered co-authorship is essential for all parties.

Concerning regulatory coordination between jurisdictions, a first issue is that many regulatory actors lack the necessary experience to fully understand the new nature of the technology ahead of us. Secondly, this is one of the first times in history that regulation is trying to anticipate the possible consequences of technology. It's as if there were an international nuclear energy agency or a nuclear regulatory industry before a bomb exploded, or before reactors were created. So, it's unusual but also interesting and with these capabilities likely necessary: even the tech business leaders – those who historically “ask permission later” are taking a certain lead. There is, therefore, an interesting co-authorship between businesses and regulators, both in the United States and in Europe. The challenge is in the short-term incentives driving policy and political actors, and a proclivity to focus regulation on what can go wrong while containing the historic opportunity to change millions of lives for good.

Also, in all the uncertainty, I believe there is a real warning to be issued: in the realms of sovereignty and competitiveness, we are also losing sight of what we share. Between Europe and the United States, and well beyond, we share common values that, in my opinion, make us unique in being able to co-construct the rules of a very new technology once again.

The two major powers in AI, China and the United States, have diametrically opposed political systems. What is the significance of the role of political regimes in the AI race?

There are two ways to look at this question, which applies to technology in general as much as AI. Silicon Valley — and I think many Americans including me — believes that innovation rises best in open societies that embrace risk, rule of law and debate. Many here generally consider that centralized and planned innovation will always have its limits. When it comes to disruptive innovation, most technologies used in the world historically have their roots in more open Western societies.

But too often we in the West tend to define innovation as the bright shiny new thing. That is true also, but we underestimate the power of taking technology to a local or regional market on that market’s terms – to make products and services (to have innovation with and on top of technology) to make it enormously successful. How can one argue that in China Alipay or WeChat Pay are not innovations? An American friend recently said to me, “It’s all based on our technology!!” OK, but which country is more dominated by mobile payments and have greater services around it and adopted? Tik Tok may not have been a bright shiny new thing, but I suspect Meta and Instagram, in often copying it, might admit how innovative it is also.

Regarding AI, all this will be on steroids. And different political systems will make different choices. Some choices by China, say on use of data, may make us uncomfortable in the West but give China a competitive advantage. We already have examples with genetics or biotechnologies. I think we are right to set boundaries and not use some of the data that China might be willing to use. But we need to question ourselves and recognize that, in the context of this compromise, China may make breakthroughs in some areas where we risk lagging behind.

Currently, attention is focused on the American AI ecosystem. But how do you assess the maturity of Chinese companies and universities in the field?

I don't invest in China per se, but I constantly talk to Chinese entrepreneurs. Two things are happening. On the one hand, the energy, tenacity, and talent cannot be ignored. Sometimes the argument is made that we are ahead of them in the field of generative AI. This doesn't mean that Chinese innovators aren't using these and other new capabilities and their own in extremely strategic sectors for them, such as electric vehicles, which is undeniable and should be expected and respected.

Regarding AI more directly, Kai-Fu Lee's among many new startups, which aims to create an OpenAI for China, have to be watched. On the academic side, Tsinghua University has also demonstrated that Chinese researchers can produce competitive technology and language models. The implications for the Chinese economy over time will be as exceptional as it will be everywhere else. Part of me, perhaps naive, has always hoped that there could be common interests in applying technology in areas such as biodiversity, health or environmental issues, and even from the perspective of international stability and security. That, however, is not in the cards any time soon technologically or politically.

What could be the impact of the upcoming presidential election on the competitiveness of the United States in AI?

The question will be how new regulatory frameworks and intergovernmental discussions could be affected by whatever next administration comes. Uncertainty and regulatory ambiguity can impact the American AI ecosystem. In my own experience evaluating regulation, I've noticed that in the first draft of the European AI Act or the American Executive Order of October 30, many things are vague enough to leave a grey area about acceptable risks.? Builders and business executives alike hate lack of clarity and catch-alls like this.

It is hoped that both major parties will be convinced that we have entered a new era with unique issues to address and unleash. There are still various candidates for the election, so I think we need to remain very cautious and not draw too hasty conclusions, even about what another Biden administration—or another Democratic administration—or a Republican administration would look like.

Immigration – specifically talent immigration – will be a hot topic. For all the reasons we limit talent coming to the States, we have to also appreciate the trade-offs. Talent is mobile – Chinese and others globally – and go anywhere. Should we care if they are no longer welcome here? A very experienced friend from Singapore said to me, "What is the best thing that has happened to the Chinese AI industry in the last ten years? Your immigration policy!" We may be fine with this, but certainly it should be part of the debate politically.

One of the great advantages of the American experience is that it has managed to open its doors to the best talent from around the world and has facilitated access to these talents. It has allowed them to succeed relatively easily, and anything that can hinder this advantage, for political or other reasons, in my opinion, is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. This openness to talent is an extraordinary asset of America and the West and is being embraced elsewhere. How many hundreds of thousands of high skilled jobs are sitting empty in Europe and the US? ?How many Nobel laureates from Europe have received their prize while pursuing an academic career in Canada, the United States, or elsewhere?

According to Sam Altman, the Gulf region could "play a central role in this global conversation (on AI)." What repercussions can the geopolitical situation in the Middle East have on the technological ecosystem?

The current, brutal situation obviously creates enormous uncertainty, which is detrimental to any innovation ecosystem. I think we have learned over time that there are deep structural issues in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. These include not only economic instabilities but also how countries treat each other and how they treat their own citizens.

Over the past two decades, we may have thought that technology would be a solution to all these problems, but that has not happened. Technology and innovation are tools that are amoral, not immoral, and fit into the political realities in very different ways – but they are not answers alone. That being said, extraordinary things are happening in the Gulf, especially in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which want to rely very deeply on these technological capabilities as tools to align the region more closely with the potential also existing in the new 21st century.

How do you see AI transforming the media industry and the way journalism is done?

I come in part from a journalistic background where I led a company in the sector. I am a bit old-fashioned on this issue because I believe that in our time, facts are important, and the role of journalism is to make us uncomfortable and push us to think about new things as they are. If I were to make a prediction about the impact of AI on political campaigns globally, I would say that we are heading towards a massification of fake news at an unprecedented rate. All modalities will be used—text, but also images or videos—to diminish people's ability to understand what is really happening.

We already see these elements in the terrible situation in Israel and Palestine. It's difficult to know what is true. The role of journalism is more important than ever, but we will also see significant benefits from the use of AI in journalism. We will be able to fact-check in ways we've never been able to before, to confirm whether something is false or not through AI. If I were leading a media organization today, I would work closely with journalists to ask the fundamental question, which is somewhat the fundamental question posed by AI: what does it really mean to be human? There are things that AI can honestly do better than humans in journalism. It should be their co-pilot. Conversely, AI currently lacks intuition and journalistic sense. There are significant opportunities to explore the complementarity between journalism and artificial intelligence.