What happened?
The Artificial Intelligence Action Summit held in Paris from 10th-11 February, marked a critical juncture in the global discussions on AI governance, shedding light on the growing divide between strict regulations and a more flexible, market-driven approach. As artificial intelligence continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, governments face mounting pressure to establish rules that ensure AI is used ethically, safely, and fairly. However, there is no global consensus on how to achieve this balance.
At the heart of the debate are two opposing approaches: one that advocates for strict regulations to prevent AI-related risks, and another that prioritizes innovation and economic growth through a more flexible, market-driven model.
Why It Matters
While previous AI summits in the U.K. (2023) and South Korea (2024) focused on long-term existential threats, the Paris Summit shifted attention to more immediate concerns—such as job displacement, ethical oversight, and AI’s role in global power dynamics. However, rather than presenting a unified vision, the discussions at Paris laid bare the deepening geopolitical divisions and competing national interests that threaten the establishment of a cohesive global framework for AI governance—particularly between countries favoring regulation, such as those in the European Union, and those pushing for looser restrictions, like the United States.
A major outcome of the summit was the Paris Declaration, signed by 61 states and organizations, intended towards promoting inclusivity and sustainability in AI development. However, some key players, including the United States and the United Kingdom, chose not to sign. Their absence from the declaration underscored a growing divide, reflecting their preference for a market-driven approach that prioritizes technological advancement over robust regulatory oversight.
Geopolitical Divides and Competing Approaches
The U.S. decision to avoid signing the declaration reflects its broader “America-first” stance. The U.S. administration maintains that such restrictions could increase legal compliance costs for companies and slow down progress on development, reinforcing its preference for a lighter regulatory touch. Simply put, the U.S. fears that heavy AI regulations could make it harder for American companies to compete internationally. A potential slowdown in AI development given heightened regulations could allow other nations—especially China—to gain a competitive edge in AI leadership, potentially shifting economic and strategic power.
On the other hand, the European Union continued to advocate for robust oversight, emphasizing ethical AI development and sustainability while initiating efforts to simplify and cut red-tapism on industries. Even France, which has been a strong advocate for ethical AI governance, struggled to balance its regulatory ambitions with the need to remain economically competitive. French President Emmanuel Macron, co-hosting the summit alongside Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said the event served as a necessary wake-up call for European strategy, emphasizing that the EU needed to resynchronize its efforts to catch up in the AI race. The EU’s $320 billion commitment to AI innovation signaled a shift toward fostering growth, but whether these funds will be able to effectively tackle global challenges—such as misinformation, algorithmic bias, and cybersecurity—remains uncertain.
For the EU, the affirmed goal is to make AI safer and fairer for everyone, but the challenge lies in finding a balance between regulation and innovation. Stringent regulations could stifle progress, while too few could lead to problems like biased decision-making and misuse of AI technology.
Despite these geopolitical divisions, the Paris Summit saw the highest level of national representation compared to previous gatherings. However, the failure to establish a consensus on AI regulation reflected a broader issue: national interests continue to take precedence over collaborative governance frameworks. The summit’s final document, labelled a “Statement” rather than a traditional “Declaration”, further reflected this diminished ambition. While it acknowledged concerns such as labor market disruptions and the concentration of AI technology, it offered little in terms of concrete, actionable policy measures or solutions. The statement remained a broad recognition of challenges rather than a structured plan to address them. As a result, individual nations will likely continue developing AI policies independently, guided by their own priorities rather than a unified global framework.
Efforts to promote “inclusive” and “diverse” AI development were also met with skepticism. The summit called for greater transparency and the adoption of open-source AI solutions, but the absence of clear enforcement mechanisms left these commitments vague. Among major criticisms of the declaration, one of the primary reasons was that it lacked practical details on how global AI governance should work and did not sufficiently address national security risks related to AI. Another key issue was the limited involvement of the private sector. Government representatives dominated discussions, while major tech companies were only included in talks on the second day—and even then, these discussions were held behind closed doors.
This ambiguity, along with such a top-down approach therefore, raises concerns whether AI governance will just remain aspirational rather than becoming a realistic, actionable framework that involves all key stakeholders.
The Path Forward
Looking ahead, the 2026 AI Summit, which will be hosted by India, presents a significant opportunity to reshape global AI discussions. India has positioned itself as a leader in AI-driven economic development, focusing on using AI to benefit sectors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. By advocating for open-source AI, India may offer a middle ground between strict regulation and unrestricted innovation, potentially bridging the gap between competing governance models.
However, meaningful progress will require India to ensure that all major AI players—including the U.S., U.K., EU, and China—engage in substantive discussions that go beyond political disagreements. The Paris Summit left an urgent question unanswered: Can global AI governance be established before rapid technological advancements make regulation obsolete? The answer will depend on whether future summits can move past political divides and create a unified, enforceable governance framework that addresses both technological and ethical challenges. The stakes are high, and action is needed now.
