The European Union wants an artificial intelligence revolution. But on whose terms?

As the United States and China compete, the European Union is looking to boost its economy with artificial intelligence. Can it compete while protecting workers, safety and the climate?

10/16/2026 16 October 2026 As the US and China compete, the European Union is looking to boost its economy with artificial intelligence. Can it compete while protecting workers, safety and the climate?

Tap dancers spun around a circular stage in the middle of a darkened auditorium, enthralling an audience of policy makers and tech heads. Not just another bureaucratic conference, the International Artificial Intelligence Summit, hosted in Dublin this week, aspired to something more spectacular – a grand announcement that Europe is ready for its artificial intelligence (AI) revolution.

Among the more than 1,500 expected guests were Google DeepMind founder and chairman Demis Hasabis and Microsoft chairman Brad Smith, in addition to high-ranking officials from the European Union and Ireland. The event was an important part of Ireland's term as president of the EU Council, but the lack of critical voices to dampen the AI ​​enthusiasm at the show has sparked accusations of boosting the technology.

Barry O'Sullivan, professor of artificial intelligence at University College Cork, told DW that the meeting was "almost like a party political program from the AI side".

The main topic was how artificial intelligence can be used to jump-start Europe's sluggish economy, boost innovation and catch up with the US and China.

In panels packed with senior executives, the potential benefits were revealed: detecting early signs of cancer, improving severe weather warnings and optimizing power distribution to save energy. Turning them around promises reliable service, however, still needs testing and validation.

Ireland's interest in these matters does not stem from mere goodwill towards EU member states. The country hosts the European operations of several of the world's largest technology companies and relies heavily on multinational corporation taxes. Foreign multinationals paid €28.8 billion in corporate tax in 2025, accounting for 87% of the total, excluding Apple's exceptional tax revenues. This includes pharmaceuticals and other sectors, not just technology.

This means Dublin has a clear interest in shaping European law while retaining investors. But according to Stanford University's AI Index, Europe's financial power is much lower than the US: private investment in AI in 2025 in the US reached $286 billion (about €253 billion), compared to $21 billion (€18.6 billion) in Europe.

But does Europe even need to compete on similar terms? O'Sullivan thinks it should focus on its strengths, including industrial robotics and applications: "We have a unique type of AI opportunity in Europe and that's something we need to support."

Using foreign models can help European businesses move faster. But it also makes them dependent on other suppliers who can change prices, limit access, and decide which capabilities to release.

EU representatives at the summit were quick to stress that rules are already in place to reap the benefits of AI.

Michael McGrath, Ireland's Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, Rule of Law and Consumer Protection, spoke of the balance between AI's potential and the "appropriate safeguards" needed to ensure trust.

The AI Act prohibits certain practices and imposes stronger requirements for sensitive uses. Its Omnibus Amendments, which took effect in July 2026, are aimed at simplifying compliance, although they have introduced some safeguards. Laws in areas including employment and education will now apply from December 2027. Items related to artificial intelligence embedded in regulated products from August 2028.

The commission has said that companies need time to adapt to the new standards and guidelines. However, critics believe that support has been delayed under pressure to compete.

For O'Sullivan, regulation and innovation are not contradictory. Referring to pharmaceutical and medical equipment, he said: The idea that regulation and innovation cannot be done is just nonsense.

To the protesters outside, the assurances given by politicians and tech companies are empty. Paul Murphy, an Irish lawmaker from the socialist People Before Profit party, argues that while European regulations are stronger than those in the US, the rate is still low. With the latest reforms, he sees a move toward deregulation.

"Big tech sets the pace and everyone is expected to keep up with it," he told DW.

Instead, he wants civil society, trade unions and politicians to discuss how to develop technology and how to use limited resources such as water and electricity.

Inside, union representative Fionnuala Ní Bhrógáin, one of the few critical voices on stage, questioned who would benefit from higher productivity. Optimizing could put more pressure on workers, he said.

Murphy also fears increasing pressure to work faster, with less autonomy and more supervision. Whether an hour saved on emails translates into thinking time or more homework depends on employers' decisions and workers' bargaining power.

On the other hand, O'Sullivan said that AI removing mundane tasks gives employees "more time to think and be more creative in their jobs."

In Ireland, the issue of resources is particularly pressing. Data centers used 23% of the country's metered electricity in 2025. This includes cloud storage and other services, not just artificial intelligence. Expanding them would increase household costs and undermine climate goals, Murphy argued.

Renewable energy can help meet demand. But additional clean electricity must also replace fossil fuels, while housing and other industries also need grid capacity.

"The sustainability of artificial intelligence is a big problem," O'Sullivan agreed, asking the sector to reduce its overall energy footprint.

Back indoors, even industry leaders acknowledged the need for boundaries. Hassabis, Alphabet's chief scientist, called recent AI hacking incidents "early warning bells" and advocated international oversight. Microsoft CEO Smith said: We need the law.

Their warnings follow concrete failures. During cybersecurity assessments in July, OpenAI models bypassed isolation controls, hacked the infrastructure around the experiment, breached restrictions, and attacked a real company called Hugging Face that hosted AI models and datasets. If similar behavior occurred inside a hospital, power grid, or other critical system, the results could be much worse. Anthropic separately disclosed unwanted actions by its AI on real websites, including a false homicide tip to Philadelphia police, despite instructions not to create an account or post anything malicious.

Speakers on and off the stage agreed: These incidents show how difficult it can be to control autonomous systems. Developer guarantees alone cannot guarantee safety. Nor can regulations eliminate every risk. But for O'Sullivan and Murphy, it's essential.

Europe wants to shape AI without compromising the benefits it promises. This balancing act is a difficult task that involves choices about investment, resources, and distribution of benefits. Not even a spectacular opening performance can dance around these questions.