At Rise of AI 2024, a panel moderated by Stefanie Soehnchen (PIABO Communications) with Anna Christmann (German Bundestag, federal coordinator for aerospace and commissioner for startups and the digital economy), Martina Silov (president of CroAI) and Kai Zenner (policy adviser, European Parliament) discusses whether Europe is leading or falling behind in AI. All three agree Europe is neither leading nor left behind: the AI Act laid regulatory groundwork, but attention must now shift to applying AI across sectors, with more investment, open data and talent. Christmann calls for a 'European Tech Deal' alongside the Green Deal. Silov argues Europe has the scientific talent but lacks business, marketing and management culture, and a tolerance for startup failure, pointing to Croatia's own unicorns built despite a small market. Zenner says Brussels still works in policy silos, that the AI Act's European ethical principles are 'hidden' in the text rather than stated upfront, and cites the underfunded AI Lighthouse initiative as an example of good ideas failing on investment and national rivalry over its location. The panel closes on the need for larger, braver private and public investment and stronger cross-border European hubs.
Key takeaways
- Anna Christmann calls for a 'European Tech Deal' to follow the Green Deal, shifting focus from AI Act regulation to applying AI across sectors.
- Martina Silov argues Europe has scientific talent but lacks business, marketing and management culture, plus tolerance for startup failure.
- Kai Zenner says Europe's AI ethical principles were successfully exported to the OECD and UNESCO but remain 'hidden' inside the AI Act's text rather than stated upfront.
- The EU's AI Lighthouse initiative, meant to become a CERN-like AI hub, was undercut by an 800,000-euro budget and years of disagreement over its location.
- Christmann cites Bosch's investment in Aleph Alpha as an early example of German industry backing a domestic AI startup, alongside a roughly 175 billion euro future fund.
Detailed notes
Where Europe stands: not leading, not left behind
All three panelists open by rejecting a binary answer. Christmann says Europe is not leading but also not left behind, having spent recent years building the AI Act as regulatory groundwork; the task now is to move to application across sectors, including public administration, which requires investment, more open data platforms and talent. She proposes a 'European Tech Deal' to follow the European Green Deal. Zenner calls the AI Act's result 'mixed feeling': it will help trustworthiness and safety but does not by itself address the risk of Europe falling behind, and needs secondary legislation plus complementary investment programs, including synergies with the Green Deal such as using AI to save energy.
What leadership would actually look like
Christmann cites regular AI use by about 30 percent of German companies versus roughly 40 percent internationally, and says leadership would mean a more active startup scene able to scale into companies with worldwide impact, helped by the European Tech Champions Initiative for venture capital and a genuinely unified digital single market. Silov describes leadership more concretely: everyday devices and services being European-made, the way US products dominate American daily life. She argues Europe has the talent but lacks the business, marketing and management culture that turns science into companies, and a cultural tolerance for startup failure, contrasting this with Croatia, a country of 3.8 million that produced globally leading products such as Rimac cars and Infobip because of a 'hunger for success' born of a harder economic history.
Silos, risk aversion and digital skills
Zenner names three problems in Brussels: policy silos where good initiatives are not connected and sometimes undercut each other; risk aversion and a habit of waiting for the state to act, which he says is now improving in Germany through initiatives involving a technical university and the Applied AI Institute and public-private partnerships including AI Act regulatory sandboxes; and a long-standing gap in digital skills that undermines Europe's broader digital ambitions. Christmann links Germany's hardware and engineering strength to the need for equal strength in AI software, and describes the government's 'startup factories' competition, which funds ecosystems around universities to help researchers found companies from their own research.
European identity, metrics of success, and where talent goes
Asked whether a shared European identity can overcome national fragmentation, Silov questions what should even be measured: research output and universities, where she says Europe already excels, or globally known companies and unicorns, where she says Europe has few success stories and is instead training a workforce that often migrates to the US. Zenner responds that Europe's high-level ethical AI principles were successfully exported into frameworks at the OECD and UNESCO, but that his push to state the 'European way of AI' explicitly at the start of the AI Act failed; the principles remain hidden inside high-risk obligations. Christmann argues Europe needs magnet research-and-business hubs comparable to CERN or EMBL Heidelberg, citing early examples like Cyber Valley in Tuebingen and the ELLIS initiative, though none has yet reached that level of global pull.
The money problem and closing remarks
Pressed on why breakthroughs are not happening despite talent, money and regulation being partly in place, Zenner cites the EU's AI Lighthouse initiative, intended to become a CERN-like AI hub, which received only 800,000 euros in funding and was delayed for years by member states disagreeing over its location. He also notes German companies broadly welcomed AI Act regulation as providing a needed framework, despite complaints about incoherent, overlapping EU laws elsewhere. Christmann points to Germany's roughly 175 billion euro future fund and to Aleph Alpha's investment from Bosch as an early example of German industry backing a German AI startup, while stressing public money alone cannot close the investment gap with the US and China. Silov closes by urging Europe to be braver about betting large sums, tens or hundreds of millions, on individual companies rather than spreading modest amounts thinly.
Quotes
We're neither, we're not leading and we're not left behind.
Stefanie Soehnchen
We don't have the business people, we don't have good management in a tech world, we don't have PR and marketing.
Martina Silov
Europe should be brave enough to say, okay, this guy or this girl or this company is worth putting money in, not 10 millions, not 50 million, I'm talking about big money.
Martina Silov
Questions answered in this talk
Is Europe leading or falling behind in AI?
According to the panel at Rise of AI 2024, Europe is neither leading nor left behind: it built strong AI Act regulation but now needs to accelerate investment, talent development and real-world application to close the gap with the US and China.
Why did the EU's AI Lighthouse initiative fail to gain traction?
According to Kai Zenner at Rise of AI 2024, the AI Lighthouse, meant to be a CERN-like European AI hub, received only 800,000 euros in funding and stalled for years because member states could not agree on where to locate it.
What does Europe need besides regulation to compete in AI?
According to the panelists at Rise of AI 2024, Europe needs larger and braver investment, more open data, stronger digital skills, and a business and marketing culture that can turn research talent into globally competitive companies, alongside its existing AI Act framework.