The idea of nations collectively creating policies to slow AI development for safety is naive. Game theory dictates that the immense competitive advantage of achieving AGI first will drive nations and companies to race ahead, making any global regulatory agreement effectively unenforceable.

The U.S. leads in tech because its ecosystem is built on "permissionless innovation"—the ability for founders to create without seeking government approval first. This contrasts with Europe's regulator-centric model and is the crucial element that must be protected to maintain the AI lead.

As countries from Europe to India demand sovereign control over AI, Microsoft leverages its decades of experience with local regulation and data centers. It builds sovereign clouds and offers services that give nations control, turning a potential geopolitical challenge into a competitive advantage.

The European Union's strategy for leading in AI focuses on establishing comprehensive regulations from Brussels. This approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. model, which prioritizes private sector innovation and views excessive regulation as a competitive disadvantage that stifles growth.

Contrary to their current stance, major AI labs will pivot to support national-level regulation. The motivation is strategic: a single, predictable federal framework is preferable to navigating an increasingly complex and contradictory patchwork of state-by-state AI laws, which stifles innovation and increases compliance costs.

Governments face a difficult choice with AI regulation. Those that impose strict safety measures risk falling behind nations with a laissez-faire approach. This creates a global race condition where the fear of being outcompeted may discourage necessary safeguards, even when the risks are known.

The European Commission, responsible for enforcing the EU AI Act, is now proposing delays and simplifications to the landmark legislation. This move, described as "buyer's remorse," is driven by high-level anxiety that the act's burdens are hurting Europe's economic competitiveness relative to the US and China.

The EU's AI Act has been so restrictive that it has largely killed native AI development in Europe. The regulation is so punitive that even major American companies like Apple and Meta are choosing not to launch their leading-edge AI capabilities there, demonstrating the chilling effect of preemptive, overbearing regulation.

Undersecretary Rogers warns against "safetyist" regulatory models for AI. She argues that attempting to code models to never produce offensive or edgy content fetters them, reduces their creative and useful capacity, and ultimately makes them less competitive globally, particularly against China.