President Macron argues that Europe's regulatory approach, often criticized as stifling, will ultimately create a competitive advantage. He posits that "safe spaces will win in the long run" because countries, companies, and consumers will gravitate towards AI systems that are reliable and trustworthy.

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.

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.

Pausing or regulating AI development domestically is futile. Because AI offers a winner-take-all advantage, competing nations like China will inevitably lie about slowing down while developing it in secret. Unilateral restraint is therefore a form of self-sabotage.

Gurley posits a critical risk of heavy-handed US AI regulation. In the internet era, a 'fence' was built around China while US firms served the world. Over-regulation could reverse this, creating a fence around the US and allowing Chinese open-source AI models to dominate and serve the rest of the world.

Reid Hoffman advises Europe against trying to replicate US hyperscalers. Instead, governments should offer streamlined access to energy and data center permits to US tech giants in exchange for compute resources, enabling European companies to build competitive AI applications.

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.

Factory's CEO argues that regulating AI at the state level is ineffective. Like climate change or nuclear proliferation, AI is a global phenomenon. A rule in California has no bearing on development in China or Europe, making localized efforts largely symbolic.