From Bill Gates to Bernie Sanders, most agree the AI arms race is disastrous. Only Europe can make it stop
This Guardian comment piece argues that the artificial intelligence industry's rapid, largely unregulated expansion risks disastrous outcomes, from environmental damage and financial collapse to authoritarian surveillance and misuse by bad actors. Figures as varied as Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders, alongside AI firm Anthropic itself, have called for a slowdown, but the author contends that voluntary industry restraint or international agreement is unrealistic, since every nation and company is incentivised to keep racing rather than risk falling behind rivals.
The piece identifies the European Union as uniquely positioned to force a pause, via its jurisdiction over Dutch firm ASML, the world's sole maker of extreme ultraviolet lithography machines essential to advanced chip production. Each machine costs around $400m and etches patterns at a 13.5-nanometre wavelength; without them, chip fabrication for the industry's planned $7tn of global datacentres by 2030 would stall. The US already imposes export controls on ASML's machines to China, demonstrating the leverage such a choke-point holds, and the author suggests the EU could similarly restrict exports to slow the broader AI race.
- Comment piece warns unchecked AI development risks multiple catastrophic outcomes
- Gates, Sanders and Anthropic have urged slowing AI's advance
- EU could use control over chipmaker ASML to force a global pause
New here? Start with this
Advanced AI is built using computer chips, and making the most powerful chips depends on specialised equipment. Dutch company ASML is the only supplier of machines that use extreme ultraviolet light to produce the most advanced chips.
Governments and technology companies are investing heavily in AI, while some public figures and companies have raised concerns about its risks. These include environmental costs, surveillance and the possibility of financial disruption; countries and firms may also feel pressure to keep developing AI so rivals do not gain an advantage.
The European Union regulates the market in which ASML operates, while the United States has already restricted exports of its machines to China. That gives the EU a potential point of influence over access to equipment needed for advanced chips, which are used in AI systems and data centres.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A pause or substantial slowdown could reduce the risk that rapidly scaling AI systems cause serious harm before safeguards catch up, including through surveillance, malicious use, environmental costs or destabilising investment. Because companies and states fear losing ground to rivals, voluntary restraint may not hold; the EU could use its leverage over essential chipmaking equipment to make a slowdown more effective than unenforced appeals for cooperation.
The case against
Restricting access to advanced chipmaking equipment could curb useful research and investment alongside dangerous applications, while concentrating decisions about technological progress in the hands of one political bloc. Such controls might also shift development elsewhere, deepen geopolitical tensions and prove difficult to sustain if countries see strategic or economic costs in falling behind; targeted safeguards and international coordination may be less blunt ways to address the risks.