At TechBBQ, Europe’s AI conversations kept coming back to: Who’s actually in control?
At Copenhagen’s TechBBQ conference, European investors, founders and operators repeatedly debated who should control the AI systems shaping business and society. The discussion centred on technological sovereignty: Europe’s dependence on US and Chinese models and infrastructure, and the risk that external providers could restrict access or influence how AI is deployed. Speakers also framed the issue as one of human agency, asking what decisions people are willing to delegate to AI systems.
The concern was sharpened by Anthropic’s Mythos and Fable models becoming unavailable outside Europe earlier this year, which disrupted at least one startup team. Signal president Meredith Whittaker warned that AI assistants integrated into operating systems could create extensive data-collection systems, while Stability AI co-founder Emad Mostaque argued that concentrated AI control could translate into national power. Other attendees said widespread AI agents and robotics may eventually require societies to reconsider ownership, work, democracy and participation.
- Europe is questioning its dependence on foreign AI providers.
- Privacy and data collection were major concerns.
- Speakers warned AI control could concentrate political and economic power.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Europe has a strong case for building greater control over its AI stack, from models and cloud infrastructure to rules governing sensitive data. Dependence on a small number of foreign providers can leave businesses and public services exposed to sudden access changes, commercial leverage and standards set elsewhere, while powerful AI assistants may concentrate intimate data and practical decision-making. Advocates see sovereignty as a way to protect democratic accountability, privacy and Europe’s capacity to set its own economic and social priorities.
The case against
Others can reasonably argue that treating AI chiefly as a sovereignty contest risks fragmenting an inherently global technology and limiting European users’ access to the best available tools. Open trade, cross-border research and competition among providers can reduce costs, accelerate innovation and give startups more choice than a protected domestic market might. On this view, the priority should be robust, internationally compatible safeguards for privacy, transparency and human oversight, rather than trying to nationalise or regionalise control of rapidly evolving systems.