This opinion piece appeared in the online edition of the Financieele Dagblad of 8 July, 2025.
Last week, 44 CEOs of big tech companies sent an urgent letter to the European Commission, requesting a two-year delay in the implementation of the AI Act. Is this wise? In 'Het Debat', Marleen Stikker, founder of Waag Futurelab, and Stef van Grieken, CEO of Cradle and signatory of the letter, respond.
In the same week that 44 CEOs called on the European Commission to pause the AI Act, a YouGov consultation showed that a majority of European citizens actually want to tighten legislation on technology. There is therefore no reason for a pause – the sooner Europe clarifies the rules, the better for the development and application of AI.
The industry paints an exaggerated picture. It suggests that Europe is merely creating obstacles and that we're falling behind in the AI race because Europe is slowing progress. But doesn’t our position actually improve when the rules of the game are clear? And what kind of race are we really in?
(Un)desirable technology
According to Open AI CEO Sam Altman and other tech bros, AI will lead to superintelligence that will cure all disease, solve the climate problem and do all our work, after which we can sit back with a (minimal) universal basic income. As part of the deal we'll have to simply accept the ecological footprint of AI, geopolitical struggle for raw materials and the dismantling of democracy. Is that the future we have in mind?
If we in Europe want to shape a future we actually desire, we must ensure that technology doesn't end up ruling us. To make that happen, we need politicians and companies that take legislation seriously. In reality, the process behind the AI Act has been carefully thought out, and there is still room to collaborate with industry, regulators, and society on how we put the law into practice.
'By regulating AI now, we're not falling behind on safety—instead, we're actively preventing harm.'
The core of the AI Act is to regulate AI from a safety perspective. This means that organisations and companies must test AI thoroughly before bringing it to the market, including in high-risk applications such as power plants.
The AI Act also provides for human oversight. People have the right to information and explanation when decisions about them are made using AI. This is precisely to prevent further harm after the lessons learned from the Toeslagenschandaal (benefits scandal) – surely, this is the least you can expect from a government.
By regulating this now, we won't fall behind. This way, we can prevent fundamental injustice and harm that is difficult or even impossible to repair. Harm that we are already experiencing in the form of our mental health being affected by misleading and addictive algorithms, and the undermining of our constitutional state by disinformation and deepfakes.
Clear frameworks
The idea that regulation stifles innovation is a caricature. We have clear frameworks for the food industry and the medical sector. Mandatory testing, research and ethics committees in these fields do not stand in the way of innovation. Moreover, we see that where a careful process is already mandatory, for example in the medical sector, the implementation of AI is faster – not least because those who use AI are aware of undesirable effects and possible damage claims.
By clearly stating what we do and do not expect from market players, we create space for newcomers in a market currently dominated by a few large players. It establishes a level playing field on which companies can build. If we want to give European tech companies real opportunities, clear rules are essential — including to break up monopolies, as we’ve recently seen in the cloud sector. Now that strategic autonomy over data is proving to be crucial, a serious European market for cloud providers is beginning to take form.
Free rein for power
The call to pause the AI Act is motivated by CEOs who fear that American and Chinese companies will not comply with the rules, making it more difficult for our “own” start-ups. They want free rein for the same unregulated power that big tech companies demand. But if European companies also pursue unethical business models and have the same capital providers as non-European competitors, what good will that do us? We will have to take a different approach, with public safeguards for technology and a different view of entrepreneurship.
Should we do nothing at all? Certainly not. AI can be useful, provided it is used purposefully and wisely, and is subject to democratic governance. Europe has the opportunity to be a world leader in ethical innovation with clear rules. This is a joint task for business, government and society.
You can find this opinion piece on the website of the Financieele Dagblad, together with an article by Stef van Grieken, a CEO who wrote the urgent letter.
Read the full article (paywall)
