You have probably heard and read about it several times over the past year: Artificial intelligence will change our economy and society more dramatically than probably any other technology before. If this is true, then you can be sure to also hear and read a lot about AI and working and living with AI in 2024 and the years to come.
In an interview with my two colleagues Okan Bellikli and Damir Fras, MIT Professor Daron Acemoğlu once again emphasized the importance of introducing effective rules for AI. And he believes that the EU has set a good example with its AI Act. The argument that tech companies cannot be regulated does not hold water, he says. China shows the opposite. But in terms of content, we should naturally take a different path than China. It is also important that Europe not only develops the rules but also its own technology. No one is likely to contradict him on that.
Acemoğlu is not as pessimistic as other economists that this can succeed in Europe. And he points out that Europe cannot be ignored simply because of the size of its market. But what about the much-touted European single market?
Things are not going as well as desired. Europe must thus fear falling further behind the other major economic powers, writes Till Hoppe. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular complain about the high level of bureaucracy that still arises when doing business across national borders. If the words of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are to be believed, this will soon change.
All the best for you,
Under Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission has introduced a wide range of laws on sustainability and digitalization over the past four years. However, the boost for the domestic economy that was hoped for has so far failed to materialize. The authority expects only 1.3 percent growth in the EU for 2024 and hardly any more for the following two years. Europe must thus fear losing further ground to other economic powers such as the USA and China.
EPP leader Manfred Weber has thus already clarified that he wants to place the conditions for business locations at the center of the upcoming European election campaign. “Many people are concerned about economic development,” says Christian Ehler, spokesperson for the Christian Democrats on the Industry Committee (ITRE). “We need to offer them convincing answers on competitiveness in order to maintain the chance of a stable majority after the European elections.” There is great concern that populists and opponents of the EU will know how to exploit people’s fears of decline.
At the urging of her party colleagues, von der Leyen gave the topic a lot of room in her State of the EU speech. In September, she announced she had commissioned former ECB head Mario Draghi to produce a competitiveness report. Former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta will also present a report on the European single market by March.
It is foreseeable that Letta will push for a deepening of the common market with its current 450 million inhabitants and 23 million companies. The President of the Jacques Delors Institute in Paris has been traveling the member states for several months to get a picture of their opinions. His sobering conclusion: removing obstacles is currently a priority for hardly any government.
30 years after the creation of the single market, a certain amount of integration fatigue has set in. The share of goods trade between the EU states in the joint economic output has only risen by 3.5 points to 23 percent since 2006. Cross-border services account for just six percent of GDP.
Governments and lobbies are stubbornly resisting the opening of their markets here. “Protectionism is also on the rise within the EU,” criticizes Freya Lemcke, head of the DIHK’s Brussels office. Several countries have complicated posting foreign employees even more.
Some European trade associations, including the VDMA and ZVEI from Germany, thus sent a letter to the Commission shortly before Christmas. Different documentation obligations from country to country and requirements such as a fixed contact person in the host country lead to “extreme bureaucracy and high costs, especially for SMEs,” is their criticism in the letter to Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton and Labour Commissioner Nicolas Schmit, which is available to Table.Media.
Letta hopes to initiate a debate at a high political level. The umbrella organization Business Europe is also calling for the single market to be placed at the top of the political agenda in the coming legislative period. A comprehensive program to eliminate obstructive rules and bureaucracy could generate more than €700 billion in additional added value by 2029.
The latest measures of the von der Leyen Commission to reduce the burden on SMEs are “disappointing,” criticizes Lemcke: “The proposals to reduce reporting obligations are not enough, and the SME relief package will do little to help companies in practice.”
It would be a Herculean task for the new Commission to give new impetus to economic integration in the EU. The national forces of inertia are not only strong in the services sector.
In energy policy, for example: the recent gas crisis has shown how crucial a genuine energy union with cross-border infrastructure is, write the three EPP MEPs Manfred Weber, Christian Ehler and Andreas Schwab in a letter to Letta. France’s refusal to build a gas pipeline from Spain across the Pyrenees, also intended to supply Germany, demonstrated the difficulty some countries had with this.
Weber, Ehler and Schwab also call for an “ambitious push” to complete the European Capital Markets Union. The biggest obstacles to improved integration of the capital markets are the lack of a harmonized framework for insolvency proceedings and the very different tax regulations in the member states.
But member states actually have a strong incentive to remove the barriers for private investors: Most state coffers are empty and the need for investment due to decarbonization and digitalization is enormous.
The shortage of coffers could also reignite the discussion about new EU funds. Some observers in Brussels expect Mario Draghi to make a case for this in his report.
So far, the German government rejected a new edition of the Next Generation EU coronavirus debt program as well as providing more funds for a European industrial policy. Due to resistance from Berlin, the Commission had to significantly scale back its industrial policy ambitions: the European Sovereignty Fund has been postponed and no fresh money has been earmarked for its placeholder STEP following tough budget negotiations.
It remains to be seen whether the German government will stick to this course given the shrinking financial leeway. So far, for example, it wants to support the domestic steel industry with billions from the federal budget to switch to green hydrogen. Yet green steel could probably be produced much cheaper at other locations in Europe. “As long as there are no relevant European subsidies, the discussion about the transformation of the industry will remain a national one,” says Philipp Jäger, Fellow at the Jacques Delors Centre of the Berlin Hertie School.
Mr. Acemoğlu, in your book you write that new technologies such as AI are not sufficiently regulated and that most workers will be irrelevant in a dystopian future. Is that realistic?
For me, that’s a nightmare scenario. But you’d be surprised if you knew how many people think it’s a beautiful utopia. And in a way, that’s the problem. AI will not lead to mass unemployment in the next two decades. But we have seen in the past that even if new technologies don’t destroy jobs on a grand scale, they do make work less relevant and less well-paid. I’m not worried that there will be no more office workers or accountants. But I am worried they will no longer be as well paid as they are today. In the US, for example, the real incomes of workers without a university degree have been falling for decades. The use of AI will exacerbate this phenomenon if we don’t set the right course.
The digital control mechanisms of the Chinese leadership immediately spring to mind. Should this be a model for democratic societies?
Absolutely not. But over the past 20 years, the Chinese Communist Party has poured billions of dollars into the development of AI and other internet tools, perfecting censorship and surveillance in the process. So there is a very China-specific approach to AI and other digital technologies. And that is a big problem. China may not be the overall AI world market leader, but it does have superiority in certain fields – such as facial recognition. We also need to see this: Technologies developed in China don’t stay in China. Huawei, for example, has exported its technologies to more than 60 countries.
European and American companies also export surveillance technology. Is only China to be blamed?
No, I don’t want that at all. There are also tech companies in the USA that have developed methods for collecting huge amounts of data and using it for police-like work. And without any regulatory framework. This may even be illegal, but there are police authorities in the USA that use this data anyway.
What is the status of efforts to regulate AI?
That is a complex question. The Chinese approach to this technology is questionable. Pretty much everything the Communist Party does has an element of control in it. On the other hand, China is also proving that these technologies can be controlled, albeit in a draconian way and with goals that we do not share in democratic societies. The argument that tech companies cannot be regulated therefore does not hold water. We should not emulate China. But China shows that it can be done.
Isn’t there a huge difference after all? Anyone who does not follow the rules in China is put in prison.
Of course, there is a difference. But I don’t think we need the threat of prison sentences. We can do it this way: We threaten companies with huge fines – in case they break the rules. Then they will probably stick to them. The EU is setting a good example in this respect. It’s not as if the EU would or even could shut these companies down. These are US companies. But the EU is a very large market. This means that US companies have a major financial interest in being present in this market.
Are politicians already aware of the dangers posed by AI?
If we had talked about this three years ago, I would have said: US politicians have not understood the problem. That has changed significantly. Many government agencies are now very concerned about the possible consequences of the use of AI. And the EU Commission has always been way ahead of the US government in this respect anyway. This is probably also true for Germany, the EU’s economically strongest member state. But the EU member states face different challenges than the USA.
In what way?
On the one hand, it plays a leading role in regulation, which is highly commendable. On the other hand, the EU must also encourage European tech companies to develop new technologies locally. I don’t want to sound cynical: But one reason the EU is ahead of the US in terms of regulation is that so far it has been almost exclusively about regulating US corporations. So European politicians don’t have to worry about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Things are different in the USA. Silicon Valley is a major contributor to the US economy, and US politicians are aware of this.
So what to do?
I am convinced that we need effective rules. And we need to abandon the naive optimism that AI will change everything for the better. That will not happen.
What should we prepare for? What can we prepare for?
The genie is already out of the bottle. Artificial intelligence will influence many aspects of our social life and our economy. But we must not become fatalistic. We still have many opportunities to exert influence. Many questions are still unanswered: Who owns data? Who can use it and how? What are the rights of employees? How do we prevent AI from leading to mass surveillance – in the political sphere as well as in the workplace?
What can we learn from history? To what extent is technological progress responsible for prosperity?
In recent decades, both politicians and economists have liked to state: let technology run its course, everyone will benefit from it in the end. This is based on the assumption that technology increases productivity, which ultimately benefits both entrepreneurs and employees. However, this premise cannot be proven from history. Of course, there have been cases where technological progress has done a lot of good. Without the Industrial Revolution, we would not be nearly as well off today. We would not be as wealthy or in such good health. But some examples were less successful. There is no automatism that technological progress leads to greater prosperity.
Please give a positive example.
From the 1950s and 60s onwards, new production technologies with advanced machinery led to a huge change for a few decades. Productivity increased, but real wages across all demographic groups also rose by an average of 2.5 percentage points per year in the USA. In Germany, the increase was even steeper. And in both countries, social inequality did not increase but decreased. So there is no evidence for this period that technological progress has led to more unemployment and less prosperity.
And a negative example?
Think of the machine that revolutionized cotton production at the end of the 18th century. The cotton gin turned the US southern states, which had previously been completely economically isolated, into one of the most dynamic regions in the world at the time. Huge fortunes were accumulated. However, the workers in the cotton industry, the slaves, did not benefit at all. In fact, they were worse off. So in economic terms, this technological progress was a complete success. But for most workers, the first 100 years of the Industrial Revolution from around 1750 to 1850 were a terrible time. Real wages stagnated, working conditions deteriorated and working hours increased.
Which of these consequences will follow an increased use of AI?
We don’t know yet, but we are at a crossroads. If we use AI, especially generative AI, in the right way, we can do a lot of good. Think about the shortage of skilled workers. There is a shortage of electricians everywhere, whose work will be much more complex in the future than it is today anyway. Generative AI could help solve this problem. Electricians would no longer have to rely solely on their own expertise, which is of course limited. Instead, they could benefit from the accumulated knowledge of thousands of electricians. And in real-time: try this method, take this part. Like this, an electrician could solve a problem very quickly.
Sounds good.
Basically, the use of generative AI goes hand in hand with a reorganization of work processes in many sectors. The healthcare sector would become friendlier to patients and also less cost-intensive. And in schools, it would be easier for teachers to look after pupils with learning difficulties. It’s unbelievable that such good ideas are not being implemented.
Why is that?
The answer is simple. The tech companies don’t care. They want to make money with AI – in the form of digital ads, for example. And we must not forget the ideological component. The corporations aim to generate autonomous machine intelligence through the use of computers and AI. It’s not about the workers. This is a vicious ideology that is widespread in Silicon Valley.
If the tech companies don’t care, it would be a task for politicians.
This brings us back to the question of regulation. Politicians cannot develop new technologies. But it can establish rules. And in cooperation with civil society, it can try to define values and standards so that technology benefits people and not just corporations.
What part does the media play in this?
The media should play an important part and raising awareness. But they don’t do that. Instead, they fall for tech giants like Elon Musk and even glorify them. Critical voices, on the other hand, barely manage to make themselves heard.
It is said that the new technologies could help with human challenges such as climate change. Shouldn’t we be more open to these technologies for this very reason?
I am firmly convinced that these technologies are an important part of getting climate change under control. No one will disagree that the expansion of renewables is important. Incidentally, I also think that Germany made a big mistake when it phased out nuclear power. As a result, clean energy is being lost for the time it takes to phase out coal, oil and gas. But that doesn’t mean that technology is a miracle cure. We still need rules to guide the use of technology. Again, this does not mean governments should micromanage and interfere in business decisions.
Given the rapid pace of climate change, do we still have time to do without the micromanagement of the state?
There is indeed no time to lose. But I don’t believe that government micromanagement is the solution. Government bureaucrats are not experts in the field of innovation. The state should rather set clear rules much more strongly than it has done so far and push renewables, for example.
Daron Acemoğlu is Professor of Economics at the elite US university MIT. In his new book “Power and Progress: Our 1000-Year Struggle for Technology and Wealth,” he and Simon Johnson describe humanity’s struggle for control of technology and the distribution of wealth.
It was a textbook parliamentary debate. For two days, students battled each other over arguments and political strategies. The Simulation of the European Parliament (SIMEP), a European political simulation game that we, as Young European Federalists (JEF), have been organizing for many years, was also a success in 2023. And yet, is it thought-provoking that we only reached 150 pupils with SIMEP, most of them high school students.
Given the European elections in June, when the new right to vote at the age of 16 will apply for the first time, Germany’s education politicians would be well advised to stop relying on civil society to do their job. European education must be anchored in the curricula as a compulsory task in all types of schools, not just in upper school politics lessons – and must actually have an impact in class. Access to the European dimension of our society must not depend on the commitment of individual teachers.
Germany has committed to participating in the development of the EU – and what’s more, each of us is a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union spelled out in Article 9 of the EU Treaty, takes its place alongside the German passport. However, on sober reflection, a European identity is often more of a wish than a reality.
What happens to our democracy if, in parallel, more and more decisions are shifted from Berlin to Brussels, especially during the crises of the past 15 years? Financial markets, migration, health, climate, artificial intelligence: Parliament, Council and Commission decide on central issues for the future. Do our students know this?
Being a citizen in the 21st century requires more than a superficial understanding of European politics – especially now that the EU is facing decisive reforms. Our democracy will fail if we do not prepare young people for the new political reality beyond the nation-state, as JEF Germany recently called for in a position paper.
There has been a KMK strategy on European education since 1978; it was last revised three years ago (click here to download). However, reading the 13 pages is sobering. The KMK could formulate concrete goals: “In the next five years, one third of all teachers, but at least one colleague per subject area per school, should receive further training in European education.” That would be it! In their strategy, however, the federal states make do with empty formulas: “The federal states agree on further training measures on the European dimension in the classroom.”
The KMK intends to expand the “content-related references to European education in the curricular requirements.” This may sound good, but is similar to the aim of strengthening calculus in mathematics. Nobody would know whether it’s about calculating limits or integral functions. And, as hard as it sounds, it is not a viable strategy if there is already a lack of systematic monitoring. What has happened since 2020? How many of the empty formulas have taken shape? European poetry alone can not help anyone.
If the KMK takes its constitutional mandate seriously, it should commission an independent scientific evaluation to examine the schools. Teaching concepts, school profiles, projects: Only based on such “reality checks” will the blind spots in European education become visible. This includes giving secondary school students better access to political education, as a discussion paper by the Lernen durch Engagement (Learning through Engagement) Foundation also states. There are also construction sites in didactics: “Many teaching materials are aimed at the upper secondary school level, while low-threshold offers for European education are rare,” writes political scientist Helmar Schöne.
Anyone neglecting European education at secondary schools and vocational colleges need not be surprised by Eurosceptic resentment – which ultimately threatens democracy. According to the 2019 Shell Youth Study, 61 percent of young people aiming for the Abitur or have already achieved it have a positive image of the European Union. The figure is only 37 percent for young people aiming for or having completed their secondary school leaving certificate. This is also a failure of the schools.
We know how profoundly staying abroad can shape an educational biography. And we know that families with little money can rarely afford such programs. More effective state subsidies would be a lever for making Europe an emotional experience. But cultural competence alone is not enough. Knowledge remains a prerequisite for being able to participate critically in European politics. This includes teaching modern European history as well as the complex interplay of European institutions – even if it sounds old-fashioned.
Nobody has to reinvent the wheel. Projects such as SIMEP, Europe@School, the European Youth Parliament and Unboxing Europe are examples of what modern institutional education can look like. The European Parliament has set up an ambassador program through which schools receive materials. The European schools have had their own network since 2004.
Eurotopics translates press reports from all over Europe that can be incorporated into lessons. The Schwarzkopf Foundation Young Europe offers peer education workshops via the Understanding Europe network. And with Jumper, the University of Göttingen has developed a simulation game particularly aimed at young people who rarely benefit from such educational opportunities. Also ideal for schools are the courses offered by the more than 50 EuropeDirect centers across Germany, which also provide a pool of experts.
It would now be up to the federal states to bundle their commitment, create institutional structures and scale the projects in a binding manner so they reach every classroom. This will certainly not be possible before the EU elections next year, so creativity is required – and a clear political signal.
The ministers of education should oblige schools to dedicate one teaching day to the European elections by June – and give head teachers the necessary freedom to do so. We are aware of the high workload of many teachers, so the school institutes or other ad hoc bodies are required to provide suitable packages with materials, simulation games and project outlines by March to implement Europe Day. On June 9, 2024, we will know whether educational federalism also masters flexibility.
Dominik Geier is State Chairman of the Young European Federalists Berlin-Brandenburg. The JEF is a non-partisan, Europe-wide association committed to the completion of the European project as a European federation.
You have probably heard and read about it several times over the past year: Artificial intelligence will change our economy and society more dramatically than probably any other technology before. If this is true, then you can be sure to also hear and read a lot about AI and working and living with AI in 2024 and the years to come.
In an interview with my two colleagues Okan Bellikli and Damir Fras, MIT Professor Daron Acemoğlu once again emphasized the importance of introducing effective rules for AI. And he believes that the EU has set a good example with its AI Act. The argument that tech companies cannot be regulated does not hold water, he says. China shows the opposite. But in terms of content, we should naturally take a different path than China. It is also important that Europe not only develops the rules but also its own technology. No one is likely to contradict him on that.
Acemoğlu is not as pessimistic as other economists that this can succeed in Europe. And he points out that Europe cannot be ignored simply because of the size of its market. But what about the much-touted European single market?
Things are not going as well as desired. Europe must thus fear falling further behind the other major economic powers, writes Till Hoppe. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular complain about the high level of bureaucracy that still arises when doing business across national borders. If the words of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are to be believed, this will soon change.
All the best for you,
Under Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission has introduced a wide range of laws on sustainability and digitalization over the past four years. However, the boost for the domestic economy that was hoped for has so far failed to materialize. The authority expects only 1.3 percent growth in the EU for 2024 and hardly any more for the following two years. Europe must thus fear losing further ground to other economic powers such as the USA and China.
EPP leader Manfred Weber has thus already clarified that he wants to place the conditions for business locations at the center of the upcoming European election campaign. “Many people are concerned about economic development,” says Christian Ehler, spokesperson for the Christian Democrats on the Industry Committee (ITRE). “We need to offer them convincing answers on competitiveness in order to maintain the chance of a stable majority after the European elections.” There is great concern that populists and opponents of the EU will know how to exploit people’s fears of decline.
At the urging of her party colleagues, von der Leyen gave the topic a lot of room in her State of the EU speech. In September, she announced she had commissioned former ECB head Mario Draghi to produce a competitiveness report. Former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta will also present a report on the European single market by March.
It is foreseeable that Letta will push for a deepening of the common market with its current 450 million inhabitants and 23 million companies. The President of the Jacques Delors Institute in Paris has been traveling the member states for several months to get a picture of their opinions. His sobering conclusion: removing obstacles is currently a priority for hardly any government.
30 years after the creation of the single market, a certain amount of integration fatigue has set in. The share of goods trade between the EU states in the joint economic output has only risen by 3.5 points to 23 percent since 2006. Cross-border services account for just six percent of GDP.
Governments and lobbies are stubbornly resisting the opening of their markets here. “Protectionism is also on the rise within the EU,” criticizes Freya Lemcke, head of the DIHK’s Brussels office. Several countries have complicated posting foreign employees even more.
Some European trade associations, including the VDMA and ZVEI from Germany, thus sent a letter to the Commission shortly before Christmas. Different documentation obligations from country to country and requirements such as a fixed contact person in the host country lead to “extreme bureaucracy and high costs, especially for SMEs,” is their criticism in the letter to Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton and Labour Commissioner Nicolas Schmit, which is available to Table.Media.
Letta hopes to initiate a debate at a high political level. The umbrella organization Business Europe is also calling for the single market to be placed at the top of the political agenda in the coming legislative period. A comprehensive program to eliminate obstructive rules and bureaucracy could generate more than €700 billion in additional added value by 2029.
The latest measures of the von der Leyen Commission to reduce the burden on SMEs are “disappointing,” criticizes Lemcke: “The proposals to reduce reporting obligations are not enough, and the SME relief package will do little to help companies in practice.”
It would be a Herculean task for the new Commission to give new impetus to economic integration in the EU. The national forces of inertia are not only strong in the services sector.
In energy policy, for example: the recent gas crisis has shown how crucial a genuine energy union with cross-border infrastructure is, write the three EPP MEPs Manfred Weber, Christian Ehler and Andreas Schwab in a letter to Letta. France’s refusal to build a gas pipeline from Spain across the Pyrenees, also intended to supply Germany, demonstrated the difficulty some countries had with this.
Weber, Ehler and Schwab also call for an “ambitious push” to complete the European Capital Markets Union. The biggest obstacles to improved integration of the capital markets are the lack of a harmonized framework for insolvency proceedings and the very different tax regulations in the member states.
But member states actually have a strong incentive to remove the barriers for private investors: Most state coffers are empty and the need for investment due to decarbonization and digitalization is enormous.
The shortage of coffers could also reignite the discussion about new EU funds. Some observers in Brussels expect Mario Draghi to make a case for this in his report.
So far, the German government rejected a new edition of the Next Generation EU coronavirus debt program as well as providing more funds for a European industrial policy. Due to resistance from Berlin, the Commission had to significantly scale back its industrial policy ambitions: the European Sovereignty Fund has been postponed and no fresh money has been earmarked for its placeholder STEP following tough budget negotiations.
It remains to be seen whether the German government will stick to this course given the shrinking financial leeway. So far, for example, it wants to support the domestic steel industry with billions from the federal budget to switch to green hydrogen. Yet green steel could probably be produced much cheaper at other locations in Europe. “As long as there are no relevant European subsidies, the discussion about the transformation of the industry will remain a national one,” says Philipp Jäger, Fellow at the Jacques Delors Centre of the Berlin Hertie School.
Mr. Acemoğlu, in your book you write that new technologies such as AI are not sufficiently regulated and that most workers will be irrelevant in a dystopian future. Is that realistic?
For me, that’s a nightmare scenario. But you’d be surprised if you knew how many people think it’s a beautiful utopia. And in a way, that’s the problem. AI will not lead to mass unemployment in the next two decades. But we have seen in the past that even if new technologies don’t destroy jobs on a grand scale, they do make work less relevant and less well-paid. I’m not worried that there will be no more office workers or accountants. But I am worried they will no longer be as well paid as they are today. In the US, for example, the real incomes of workers without a university degree have been falling for decades. The use of AI will exacerbate this phenomenon if we don’t set the right course.
The digital control mechanisms of the Chinese leadership immediately spring to mind. Should this be a model for democratic societies?
Absolutely not. But over the past 20 years, the Chinese Communist Party has poured billions of dollars into the development of AI and other internet tools, perfecting censorship and surveillance in the process. So there is a very China-specific approach to AI and other digital technologies. And that is a big problem. China may not be the overall AI world market leader, but it does have superiority in certain fields – such as facial recognition. We also need to see this: Technologies developed in China don’t stay in China. Huawei, for example, has exported its technologies to more than 60 countries.
European and American companies also export surveillance technology. Is only China to be blamed?
No, I don’t want that at all. There are also tech companies in the USA that have developed methods for collecting huge amounts of data and using it for police-like work. And without any regulatory framework. This may even be illegal, but there are police authorities in the USA that use this data anyway.
What is the status of efforts to regulate AI?
That is a complex question. The Chinese approach to this technology is questionable. Pretty much everything the Communist Party does has an element of control in it. On the other hand, China is also proving that these technologies can be controlled, albeit in a draconian way and with goals that we do not share in democratic societies. The argument that tech companies cannot be regulated therefore does not hold water. We should not emulate China. But China shows that it can be done.
Isn’t there a huge difference after all? Anyone who does not follow the rules in China is put in prison.
Of course, there is a difference. But I don’t think we need the threat of prison sentences. We can do it this way: We threaten companies with huge fines – in case they break the rules. Then they will probably stick to them. The EU is setting a good example in this respect. It’s not as if the EU would or even could shut these companies down. These are US companies. But the EU is a very large market. This means that US companies have a major financial interest in being present in this market.
Are politicians already aware of the dangers posed by AI?
If we had talked about this three years ago, I would have said: US politicians have not understood the problem. That has changed significantly. Many government agencies are now very concerned about the possible consequences of the use of AI. And the EU Commission has always been way ahead of the US government in this respect anyway. This is probably also true for Germany, the EU’s economically strongest member state. But the EU member states face different challenges than the USA.
In what way?
On the one hand, it plays a leading role in regulation, which is highly commendable. On the other hand, the EU must also encourage European tech companies to develop new technologies locally. I don’t want to sound cynical: But one reason the EU is ahead of the US in terms of regulation is that so far it has been almost exclusively about regulating US corporations. So European politicians don’t have to worry about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Things are different in the USA. Silicon Valley is a major contributor to the US economy, and US politicians are aware of this.
So what to do?
I am convinced that we need effective rules. And we need to abandon the naive optimism that AI will change everything for the better. That will not happen.
What should we prepare for? What can we prepare for?
The genie is already out of the bottle. Artificial intelligence will influence many aspects of our social life and our economy. But we must not become fatalistic. We still have many opportunities to exert influence. Many questions are still unanswered: Who owns data? Who can use it and how? What are the rights of employees? How do we prevent AI from leading to mass surveillance – in the political sphere as well as in the workplace?
What can we learn from history? To what extent is technological progress responsible for prosperity?
In recent decades, both politicians and economists have liked to state: let technology run its course, everyone will benefit from it in the end. This is based on the assumption that technology increases productivity, which ultimately benefits both entrepreneurs and employees. However, this premise cannot be proven from history. Of course, there have been cases where technological progress has done a lot of good. Without the Industrial Revolution, we would not be nearly as well off today. We would not be as wealthy or in such good health. But some examples were less successful. There is no automatism that technological progress leads to greater prosperity.
Please give a positive example.
From the 1950s and 60s onwards, new production technologies with advanced machinery led to a huge change for a few decades. Productivity increased, but real wages across all demographic groups also rose by an average of 2.5 percentage points per year in the USA. In Germany, the increase was even steeper. And in both countries, social inequality did not increase but decreased. So there is no evidence for this period that technological progress has led to more unemployment and less prosperity.
And a negative example?
Think of the machine that revolutionized cotton production at the end of the 18th century. The cotton gin turned the US southern states, which had previously been completely economically isolated, into one of the most dynamic regions in the world at the time. Huge fortunes were accumulated. However, the workers in the cotton industry, the slaves, did not benefit at all. In fact, they were worse off. So in economic terms, this technological progress was a complete success. But for most workers, the first 100 years of the Industrial Revolution from around 1750 to 1850 were a terrible time. Real wages stagnated, working conditions deteriorated and working hours increased.
Which of these consequences will follow an increased use of AI?
We don’t know yet, but we are at a crossroads. If we use AI, especially generative AI, in the right way, we can do a lot of good. Think about the shortage of skilled workers. There is a shortage of electricians everywhere, whose work will be much more complex in the future than it is today anyway. Generative AI could help solve this problem. Electricians would no longer have to rely solely on their own expertise, which is of course limited. Instead, they could benefit from the accumulated knowledge of thousands of electricians. And in real-time: try this method, take this part. Like this, an electrician could solve a problem very quickly.
Sounds good.
Basically, the use of generative AI goes hand in hand with a reorganization of work processes in many sectors. The healthcare sector would become friendlier to patients and also less cost-intensive. And in schools, it would be easier for teachers to look after pupils with learning difficulties. It’s unbelievable that such good ideas are not being implemented.
Why is that?
The answer is simple. The tech companies don’t care. They want to make money with AI – in the form of digital ads, for example. And we must not forget the ideological component. The corporations aim to generate autonomous machine intelligence through the use of computers and AI. It’s not about the workers. This is a vicious ideology that is widespread in Silicon Valley.
If the tech companies don’t care, it would be a task for politicians.
This brings us back to the question of regulation. Politicians cannot develop new technologies. But it can establish rules. And in cooperation with civil society, it can try to define values and standards so that technology benefits people and not just corporations.
What part does the media play in this?
The media should play an important part and raising awareness. But they don’t do that. Instead, they fall for tech giants like Elon Musk and even glorify them. Critical voices, on the other hand, barely manage to make themselves heard.
It is said that the new technologies could help with human challenges such as climate change. Shouldn’t we be more open to these technologies for this very reason?
I am firmly convinced that these technologies are an important part of getting climate change under control. No one will disagree that the expansion of renewables is important. Incidentally, I also think that Germany made a big mistake when it phased out nuclear power. As a result, clean energy is being lost for the time it takes to phase out coal, oil and gas. But that doesn’t mean that technology is a miracle cure. We still need rules to guide the use of technology. Again, this does not mean governments should micromanage and interfere in business decisions.
Given the rapid pace of climate change, do we still have time to do without the micromanagement of the state?
There is indeed no time to lose. But I don’t believe that government micromanagement is the solution. Government bureaucrats are not experts in the field of innovation. The state should rather set clear rules much more strongly than it has done so far and push renewables, for example.
Daron Acemoğlu is Professor of Economics at the elite US university MIT. In his new book “Power and Progress: Our 1000-Year Struggle for Technology and Wealth,” he and Simon Johnson describe humanity’s struggle for control of technology and the distribution of wealth.
It was a textbook parliamentary debate. For two days, students battled each other over arguments and political strategies. The Simulation of the European Parliament (SIMEP), a European political simulation game that we, as Young European Federalists (JEF), have been organizing for many years, was also a success in 2023. And yet, is it thought-provoking that we only reached 150 pupils with SIMEP, most of them high school students.
Given the European elections in June, when the new right to vote at the age of 16 will apply for the first time, Germany’s education politicians would be well advised to stop relying on civil society to do their job. European education must be anchored in the curricula as a compulsory task in all types of schools, not just in upper school politics lessons – and must actually have an impact in class. Access to the European dimension of our society must not depend on the commitment of individual teachers.
Germany has committed to participating in the development of the EU – and what’s more, each of us is a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union spelled out in Article 9 of the EU Treaty, takes its place alongside the German passport. However, on sober reflection, a European identity is often more of a wish than a reality.
What happens to our democracy if, in parallel, more and more decisions are shifted from Berlin to Brussels, especially during the crises of the past 15 years? Financial markets, migration, health, climate, artificial intelligence: Parliament, Council and Commission decide on central issues for the future. Do our students know this?
Being a citizen in the 21st century requires more than a superficial understanding of European politics – especially now that the EU is facing decisive reforms. Our democracy will fail if we do not prepare young people for the new political reality beyond the nation-state, as JEF Germany recently called for in a position paper.
There has been a KMK strategy on European education since 1978; it was last revised three years ago (click here to download). However, reading the 13 pages is sobering. The KMK could formulate concrete goals: “In the next five years, one third of all teachers, but at least one colleague per subject area per school, should receive further training in European education.” That would be it! In their strategy, however, the federal states make do with empty formulas: “The federal states agree on further training measures on the European dimension in the classroom.”
The KMK intends to expand the “content-related references to European education in the curricular requirements.” This may sound good, but is similar to the aim of strengthening calculus in mathematics. Nobody would know whether it’s about calculating limits or integral functions. And, as hard as it sounds, it is not a viable strategy if there is already a lack of systematic monitoring. What has happened since 2020? How many of the empty formulas have taken shape? European poetry alone can not help anyone.
If the KMK takes its constitutional mandate seriously, it should commission an independent scientific evaluation to examine the schools. Teaching concepts, school profiles, projects: Only based on such “reality checks” will the blind spots in European education become visible. This includes giving secondary school students better access to political education, as a discussion paper by the Lernen durch Engagement (Learning through Engagement) Foundation also states. There are also construction sites in didactics: “Many teaching materials are aimed at the upper secondary school level, while low-threshold offers for European education are rare,” writes political scientist Helmar Schöne.
Anyone neglecting European education at secondary schools and vocational colleges need not be surprised by Eurosceptic resentment – which ultimately threatens democracy. According to the 2019 Shell Youth Study, 61 percent of young people aiming for the Abitur or have already achieved it have a positive image of the European Union. The figure is only 37 percent for young people aiming for or having completed their secondary school leaving certificate. This is also a failure of the schools.
We know how profoundly staying abroad can shape an educational biography. And we know that families with little money can rarely afford such programs. More effective state subsidies would be a lever for making Europe an emotional experience. But cultural competence alone is not enough. Knowledge remains a prerequisite for being able to participate critically in European politics. This includes teaching modern European history as well as the complex interplay of European institutions – even if it sounds old-fashioned.
Nobody has to reinvent the wheel. Projects such as SIMEP, Europe@School, the European Youth Parliament and Unboxing Europe are examples of what modern institutional education can look like. The European Parliament has set up an ambassador program through which schools receive materials. The European schools have had their own network since 2004.
Eurotopics translates press reports from all over Europe that can be incorporated into lessons. The Schwarzkopf Foundation Young Europe offers peer education workshops via the Understanding Europe network. And with Jumper, the University of Göttingen has developed a simulation game particularly aimed at young people who rarely benefit from such educational opportunities. Also ideal for schools are the courses offered by the more than 50 EuropeDirect centers across Germany, which also provide a pool of experts.
It would now be up to the federal states to bundle their commitment, create institutional structures and scale the projects in a binding manner so they reach every classroom. This will certainly not be possible before the EU elections next year, so creativity is required – and a clear political signal.
The ministers of education should oblige schools to dedicate one teaching day to the European elections by June – and give head teachers the necessary freedom to do so. We are aware of the high workload of many teachers, so the school institutes or other ad hoc bodies are required to provide suitable packages with materials, simulation games and project outlines by March to implement Europe Day. On June 9, 2024, we will know whether educational federalism also masters flexibility.
Dominik Geier is State Chairman of the Young European Federalists Berlin-Brandenburg. The JEF is a non-partisan, Europe-wide association committed to the completion of the European project as a European federation.
