Ronan Murphy
Thank you very much everybody for joining this conversation today. We’re delighted to be able to discuss steering the digital future, particularly Poland’s EU presidency and the race to achieve AI milestones. My name is Ronan Murphy. I’m the director of the Tech Policy program here at CEPA, and we’re delighted to welcome coming to us live from Brussels, not from Poland at the moment, it seems, Minister Dariusz Standerski, he is Secretary of State for the Ministry of Digital Affairs for Poland, comes from an economics background, so hopefully we’ll be able to inject some economics into the conversation at some point. So we’re also joined by Hillary Brill. Hillary has decades experience in the intersection of technology and law, and policy, both in the corporate sector for some Fortune 500 companies. She’s also an academic at the Georgetown Law Center on technology law in general, and we’re delighted to have her here. Thank you very much, Hillary. We’ve got Todd O’Boyle from the Chamber of Progress. Thanks, Todd, for joining us today, a background of public policy and expert in these affairs on the on this side of the Atlantic, looking forward to what you have to say. And last, but by no means least, Doctor Divyansh Kaushik, who is the–currently working with Beacon Global Strategies, but is a techie, which might be helpful for us at some point during this this conversation. So, Minister, I might turn to you to start to set the scene, we are talking about Poland’s Presidency of the EU Council and your leadership in that in that position, in that role, the Commission recently announced the Competitiveness Compass, which is a plan to enact some of the recommendations, if not all, the recommendations from Mario Draghi’s report and some of those from Enrico Letta’s reports, which I’m sure will be dropped in conversation as we talk. What can you tell us about how Poland is approaching this from a technology point of view, an AI point of view?

Dariusz Standerski
First of all, thank you for having me. I believe it’s a wonderful opportunity to discuss our priorities and different point of views on the situation of the European Union, especially because Poland took the Presidency in very interesting times. It’s not only the beginning of the European college, it’s also the beginning of the new US administration, and with those circumstances, Polish Presidency was focused since the beginning on vital values for us. First value that we need to deregulate our legal regulations in the European Union, and the second, we need to build investment pillars for the European Union. Less regulation, more investment. And that was the message of our government, and we tried to push the European Commission to do so, and we see already that we are on the same page. And how I recognize the role of the European Presidency, as our Prime Minister Don Tusk said, that Polish government needs to energize the European Union and push forward vital issues for that and that’s why I’m really proud that the European Commission already announced the large plan for investment in AI called InvestAI, gathering many European companies to mobilize the private capital for that. It will be 150 billion euros mobilized in this area, also adding 50 billion euros of public spending in such area. And all of this is added by the great initiative, such is the AI Factory program, which aims to build the supercomputers network in the European Union to accelerate development of AI. And that’s fully in line with Polish priorities, because, as our AI priority mentioned, the need for the investment strategy. We already are in the in the process of preparing that. And also for us, one of the top priorities was, and still is cyber security, because without spending cyber security, and without improving coordination that area, all could be invested in vain because we need to build resilient networks, and that’s why, in two weeks from now, in Warsaw, we will gather cyber and digital ministers from all member states of the European Union, and we as hosts, will not be alone on the scene, because we will, we will chair this, this meeting alongside with our Defense Minister, because for us, it’s of vital importance to merge two perspectives, civilian and military. That’s why, because we want to show by example, today, Polish government decided to establish the AI Institute for Dual Use, the Institute which will be, which is from today, supervised by Digital and Defense Minister, because we see that our spending need to be merged from civilian and military perspective, and we need to build our resilience from both sides of this stage. So Polish priorities for presidency, including less regulation and more investment, are in the making, are enforcing right now, and we still have four months to accelerate this development, but I see already that the direction is better week by week. So I hope that we will have this direction, not only for the whole of Polish Presidency, but other presidencies as well. Thank you very much, Minister And you mentioned things changing week by week. We’re talking to each other days after the Munich Security Conference and various events that have happened and announcements that have been made since then, you specifically reference the overlap between defense and tech, and we know about Poland’s leadership in the ongoing Ukraine conflict and within Europe. So I think turning to you, Dave, you heard there, and bearing in mind all these events, and you heard the Minister mentioned that the EU is energized on the AI front and looking to take steps. We’ve heard big numbers being thrown out for investment on both sides of the Atlantic. And you set the scene as to where you see it now and where the progress will come.

Divyansh Kaushik
Well, I think on the US side, I would say, look, you’ve got unified control of government. The government’s very focused on making sure that we have aI acceleration, and the focus will be more so that we are developing the technology. We are maintaining the frontier in the United States, that the frontier of both the data centers, the infrastructure as well as the models are here, the deployment, the diffusion happens through here because, mainly because, like, a lot of people were woken up by Deep Seeks R1 model that came out just on the day of inauguration, right? Even though, like, there’s not much going on in that model, but it was a wake up call for some people. And I think that’s kind of where you will see a push things like the National AI research resource that were not happening before because of other political reasons. Perhaps will get a push now, but at the same time, we also see, like a mass a greater desire for adoption within the government, whether it be through the efficiency push that we are seeing now are just generally on AI readiness for the military. So I think that’s where I do see a lot of things going forward. I do see that the administration will take the steps that it needs to take on energy security and resiliency for making sure that the 1 gigawatt, 5 gigawatt, 7 gigawatt data centers, whatever, right, like that, there’s a–the 5 gigawatt data centers that we do want to come online by 2028 are able to come online by then, and that would require getting started now. That would require, like, reforming our permitting process. That would require streamlining NEPA, which the administration has started already. So, that’s where I see the US really going forward on.

Hillary Brill
Hello and thank you as well for having me here. I think that now more than ever, is an important time to work with organizations like CEPA to talk about collaboration and at least conversations in whatever areas that we can find common ground, especially in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, that are an economic driver for everyone in any possible area in efficiency and can create so many positive opportunities and positive impacts economically and socially, but to directly. So, thank you, thank you everyone for adding me to this conversation, and I look forward to it. But to answer your question, I think all of us here in this in this room, in this conversation, know that there has been a dramatic divergence from the previous administration to this current administration, clearly not just in AI, but in many, many different areas of policy. We have seen the change from collaboration in Europe on climate to not as much collaboration on climate. So what’s happening in AI should not be a surprise. What’s happening in terms of US policy being America first pro competition, less regulation, that also should not be a surprise with the messaging that was put forward by Trump throughout his entire election, and he said he would start doing what he did immediately. It has only been not even a month, almost a month, or is it exactly a month?

Ronan Murphy
Yeah, a very long month.

Hillary Brill
I think I speak for many people when I say that. While I didn’t expect the philosophy to be any different, and conversations a couple months ago, saying, here’s where the Biden administration is holistically, in a high level, compared to what we think Trump will do. There hasn’t been any change in terms of competition deregulation, but to do it so quickly and in clear terms, particularly at the Paris summit, when you mentioned that perhaps some people might have been surprised at how direct, particularly, JD Vance was in saying we’re America first, and saying that I’m not here to talk about EU safety and safety is not opportunity. I’m not quoting directly, but these are paraphrases of what he had to say, that the AI race or AI future isn’t going to happen with hand wringing about safety. So it was clear from the US leader that, okay, competition is important. Safety may be an issue, but that’s not going to be a priority, a priority. That is not what had been happening with the Biden administration. Previously, there was quite a bit of international collaboration, global AI summits, conversations about safety. There was an executive order that the Biden administration had with over 110 pages and included as one of its top priorities safety and competitiveness. But competitiveness wasn’t first. I think those priorities have clearly shifted. As expected, Trump immediately overturned an executive order, an executive order in the United States does not have the enforcement power that Congress has when it passes laws, and it is generally a statement by the President, but the President can use what he has at his resources, which happens to be the administration, happens to be our agencies, it happens to be funding to our agencies, and we’re seeing that happen in the US. But, what is particularly weak about an executive order is that the new president can overturn it, and that happened the first day, and he put forward a new immediately, a new executive order on AI, showing AI is a priority. AI is important. And it was more of a focus on deregulation, free market innovation, diminishing oversight. And, you know, a discussion in terms of wanting to have intense, massive amounts of AI funding and research. And there is a study that was required by this recent executive order that will happen 180 days from that. And there has been a call to have comments about the comments about what should be in that. But what will be interesting is what is actually going to be in the first report from this new administration.

Ronan Murphy
Yeah, yeah. Thanks very much. I think you’ve, you’ve you Well, first of all, to mention the good, the good work you’re doing for CEPA, you’ve led our a ongoing series on AI and copyright, I think we’re going to launch that next day or so. So that’s something everyone should have a look at. And but you’ve, you’ve, you’ve mentioned something Todd, I’m going to turn to you on, which is this 180 day window that’s available to redraw us tech policy and which that might be, maybe that’s how one would describe it. I’m not sure there was a tech policy we could all put our finger on before, but maybe that’s what we’re going to get. But particularly–with particular reference to the AI Executive Order and the possibly I believe and correct me if I’m wrong, maybe touch upon export controls, which I know is something that Europe wants to talk about. Todd.

Todd O’Boyle
Yes, Ronan, thank you, to you, to CEPA, to the co-panelists for this conversation today. I’m very happy to be here. A few things…while I don’t disagree with Hillary that this was a very abrupt and very dramatic change, I will note that that substantively it remains to be seen just how consequential some of these decisions were. So for example, Hillary’s absolutely right that the Biden executive order on AI was very safety focused. But it is also worth considering that the that a Executive Order directed a number of administ agency actions do a report on this, take comments on that many of those actions had already concluded by the time that the executive order was repealed. So in some sense, it may have that that part of the order may not have as much impact, as much substantively as maybe the headlines would suggest. I think Hillary’s absolutely right that the real question remains to be seen, what does this under this report, in 180 days, say the administration is taking comment on the action plan. We will obviously be participating in and sharing our perspective. I think there are some areas of bipartisan agreement. We saw in the waning days of the last Congress, Democrats and Republicans come together to create some exemptions to NEPA, our environmental Environmental Protection Act that governs regulations on citing things like facilities that are funded by the chips and chips and science act to encourage the siting of chip factories here in the United States. So I think there are some areas where there probably some non controversial consensus items will come out of that. On the topic of export controls, I think this one is significantly much more controversial, and it’s very difficult to tell how things pan out in the waning days of the previous administration. There was obviously the diffusion rule that categorized certain nations as being tier one, flying in first class, and others were in the back, flying in coach. And it certainly struck me as odd that nations that we traditionally consider as close allies are not going to have the same access that other–that others will. I think that that’s probably a reasonable area where, for some refinement that would still allow that would still be consonant with the United States maintaining a global leadership position without– and a consistent advantage over global competitors, particularly vis a vis the rise of China. On that I think this is all consonant with a Republican trifecta, a very muscular Trump administration that’s focused on America first. But I would add that one of the key aspects in the American tech policy story is also at the state level, which I’m also happy to talk about either now or or yeah, in a future question.

Ronan Murphy
Yeah, yeah. Well, I think we think that’s something we can we might bring in the minister, because we do want to talk about Poland. I think, and Europe, because I do think there are opportunities, and you must be exploring that most member states are with in collaboration with individual states across multiple fronts, not just on AI, but on other businesses over the years. But to speak directly to the export controls question, Todd described it as flying in first class, somewhat shockingly, to certainly to us at CEPA, Poland was not allocated a seat there.

Dariusz Standerski
Yeah, I was lucky to to meet with the Biden’s administration during their last days in the office and with the Trump’s administration during the first day in in office. That was great experience, one of its kind during the lifetime. And that was particularly interesting, because when I spoke to the representatives of the Commerce Department and Department of State, I wanted to explore the details behind, behind the decision this diffusion rule, taking Poland and other countries into tier two. And to be honest, the Biden administration didn’t exactly know the details behind it, so we gave up for two days and went back to the new administration, to Trump’s administration, and what we agreed that they didn’t know as well why Poland is in the second class. However, the Trump’s administration asked us for some time, because they need to, they need to cover a lot of issues from the day one, and that’s totally understandable. I remember my first days in the office. There’s a lot work to do at the beginning, a lot to learn what happened during previous, previous years, what issues are critical, which are not ready. So that’s why we came into agreement that Poland’s Government will issue the official statement on that, based on facts and data which was probably lacking with the with the last decision, and before my 15th, there will be possible revision of this, this role for which we are waiting for. And that’s also great, great example ofthe cooperation between European member states, because besides Polish activities and this area, the European Commission had also strong statement on the European single market, that no country can divide European member states, that we are in the in the our common single market, and it’s just impossible to treat different member states differently. So, so I believe that this is the example of decision which was not necessarily based on facts and data we are working on that we of course regret that that happened, but I believe that we came into the agreement, and we’ll be on the same page with the new administration. We just need some some time to discuss it.

Ronan Murphy
Did it have any practical implications? Because, in effect, it’s only been around for a few weeks. Has it had any practice, you know? Has it had practical implications that you know of?

Dariusz Standerski
First of all, as you said, it’s flowing only for weeks. And second, it’s not in force yet still. And the exact limits are not harmful for Polish economy, because Poland, despite its plan for investment, because we want to double our public computing powers this year, will not we will not still meet those limits. However, on the other side, this rule ought to be precise. This map attached to this document were available globally, and it went viral in some environments. So every decisions like that, every communicate like that will may, will have its influence into investment, investment rates into the climate around Poland. And that’s why our reaction had to be strong, and it was strong. And on the other hand, we also gained a lot of sympathy from other from private companies like Nvidia, for example, because we also understood that that was not really consulted with private sector and that it could be harmful, also from–for them. So we have on the same we have on the board many countries all around the world. We have on the board the European Union and private sector producing those chips. So there’s no many more examples how this decision was just ridiculous for us.

Ronan Murphy
Yeah, yeah. And the single market question, it was raised by other member states, because it sets a precedent, and it makes it difficult to move or to do manufacturing throughout the union, because, you what, I can’t drive from, from from Germany into Poland with a few chips, you know, to put into some other device. You know. I mean, that sort of practicality is, is always, always something that can pop up. I might ask this generally. But start with you, Dave. I know with Beacon in particular, you deal with corporate clients all the time, and the minister has referenced their Nvidia in particular. But there are others, clearly. The role of the private sector, the role of the tech firms, majority of whom are us, based us founded in shoring up what could be a very rocky period in transatlantic relations, is something that I’ve been thinking about, and we’re thinking about at CEPA a bit and on the same by the same token, the path forward that Europe has already mapped out for itself, the competitiveness compass, Draghi letter, etc, is not practically achievable. Talk about those practicalities without deep engagement and use of the services provided by those us tech firms, cloud scalers, hyper scalers, in particular. And what can you see happening there? What are you hearing? How do you think firms will approach this, the new realities today?

Divyansh Kaushik
I think you know every, every single firm, is going to well, from not to speak on like individual firms just trace back a bit like, but broadly speaking, industry, I think, generally, really appreciated how the Vice President put forward his tech agenda in Paris, you know, and how the minister was talking about, like, that Europe needs to deregulate, I think, like, that’s critical for the US tech industry too, right? Like, although the DMA, DSA, DSDs, all those things, right, like that, are hindering US Tech deployment in European countries are going to have to be a part of the conversation. To the Draghi report as well, right? Like you can’t reject any dilution, or, sorry, you have to reject any dilution or cherry picking off the recommendations over there, like the new European leadership should demand all 170 recommendations be taken seriously, right? And I think that’s going to be a bedrock for this partnership going forward, both providing certainty to hybrid scalers here, that there will be a market friendly environment in Europe. But to your point on previous point on export controls as well. I’ll just say things like the diffusion rule are here to stay. They’re probably going to be strengthened, maybe some formalization on countries, yeah. But you know, that’s the general direction of travel that we’ve been in, and that’s the general direction of travel that we’re going to be in for the foreseeable future. I think companies are trying hard to like how have a better understanding of the geopolitics that they are now suddenly part of which perhaps was, you know, has been a shift out. We start to see economic security as part of national security more broadly. And I think companies will want greater certainty and less macro instability on that front. But you know, you want greater deregulation at the same time you also want things like, you know, voluntary. Uh, bodies like the AI Safety Institute are, whether it be the US one or the UK one, like you look who’s the one proposing that the AI Institute, the AI Safety Institute, stay it’s all the companies, because it’s a voluntary mechanism for them to work with the US government, the UK Government. Nobody has said that about the the European AI office. But like, you know, because one on the one hand, like the US and the UK ones are like, Okay, we’ll work with you on national security evaluations. Rather like, one common theme I hear is that the European AI office says to companies, don’t care if you evaluated with US or UK, you have to evaluate here. I think like those, things will have to change.

Ronan Murphy
Well, that would require cooperation.

Divyansh Kaushik
That would require a lot of cooperation. And I think like that there–I think there’s willingness on both sides, right? We’ve seen that over the last couple of months. I think it’s translating that willingness into action and making sure that we have clear deliverables coming out and early on.

Ronan Murphy
Yeah, I wonder. And maybe this is anybody who wants to chime in on it, the DMA, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Service Act, DSA, the EU AI Act, which is only–isn’t even up and running. I mean, the AI office is still being staffed out, and there are, there were a couple of deadlines looming, but those we’ve heard from are adamant that the EU is, is not going to get in the way. That’s the idea. Now, whether or not turns out to be the case, we don’t know. But how does one–is it going to be possible in a practical sense? And I’m using the word practical a lot to divorce this tech policy from the security question, which Europe had taken steps towards. We, like we’ve written about how competitiveness and security were the new climate and green in terms of the switching commission. And do, do we see, I think Minister might come back to you very quickly on this, before we bring back Todd and Hillary. And is, is it going to be possible to have conversations about this with the Ukraine question looming and everything like it?

Dariusz Standerski
I believe that this week’s meetings in Paris are crucial because, as we saw first, European leaders gathered on Monday, hosted by President Macron and Prime Minister Tusk. The second meeting is today, and they have critical decisions to make, how to support Ukraine, how to mobilize the new capital, and what I suggest, but that’s my personal point of view, there are 200 billion euros inRussian assets in the in the European Union, I believe we should use those money to support Ukraine. And we have also couple others decisions to make, including increasing spending on defense, on cyber security. And that’s why such meetings as in Paris are crucial, because there is no need to introduce the new European act to do this. That’s only decision of the leaders and finding the budget, and that’s why we are the observers and participants of the possibly historic meetings and historic decisions to make. And as I mentioned at the beginning, it’s high time for the European Union to wake up and to start invest and to build its sovereignty also in the infrastructure. So the next months will be decisive, not only for Ukraine, and not only for their future, for their lives, possibly, but also for the role of the European Union in this this race. Because we all feel that time is going much more quick–quicker than before, and that’s why our leaders, European leaders, need to adapt to this passage of time. And the time for direction is now, and I believe that in two, three years from now, we will, we will discuss this from the perspective, and then we will see those effects. But those effects need to have its source in the decisions from February, I believe, up to July, August. That’s the largest horizon that we have.

Ronan Murphy
Yeah, okay. Thank you very much, Minister And I know it’s a little bit of a segue, but I mean, I think we can’t ignore it. And Hilary, I might come, come back to you on. We’ve mentioned some of the EU legislation, much of which has been or is being looked at and or adopted throughout the world, and the DMA has been looked at in various jurisdictions. We’re going to be publishing on that too, as well as we have done in the past. And GDPR in particular has caught on, one might say, the Data Protection Regulation and is the the US landscape, there’s more to it than the federal question. And do you see the EU AI Act in particular being something that maybe Todd mentioned the state level? Is that something that could come back around here? Or is, is that train maybe left the station at this stage?

Hillary Brill
Wow, there’s so much there. I know fun to talk about, I’m sure, and I will have another great banter here. And I am sure we have a lot to share. There’s definitely something interesting you said about GDPR catching on before the gtvr, there was all sorts of conversations about privacy. And excuse me for being a professor here, I like to look at history and trends and then look at where we are right now and have a conversation about that. So you can just indulge me for like a minute. You mentioned GDPR because there was no US privacy legislation when GDPR was passed, there continues to be no US privacy legis–comprehensive data privacy legislation. At the time, I was working in industry, and I was working for companies that cared quite a bit about data privacy, and the conversation was really focused on voluntary options, talking to legislators about why there could be unintended consequences. These conversations are still going on. But there was a moment where conversations turned into action after the GDPR. GDPR, the winners, yes, consumers have more protection. We have an entire cottage industry now on privacy from the GDPR. We never had privacy lawyers before the GDPR. We have an entire industry of privacy lawyers. But what happened is that there was a vacuum of action in federal policy. I can’t say for the first time, because there are many different times, but in tech policy, truly, the companies were not seen. This was pre tech lash, and there was a lot of faith in companies working together. And once to go back in history, there was Cambridge Analytica, and people realized, wait, information is being actually taken. There was this fear of tech companies, which created more of a need, and since the federal government could not get anything past the finish line, the focus in the vacuum went to the States and California, it’s CCPA Act became the first, for better or worse, de facto federal legislation in the United States, although it was from California. And interesting fact, for those who are listening for you here, if you didn’t know it, the CCPA was not even passed by state legislators. It was actually passed by voters. It was put on the ballot. It was a ballot initiative, which there can be any kind of ballot initiative, if you get a certain number of numbers. It was put forward by aphilanthropist who cared about privacy, and it passed by the people, and it still cannot be changed by California legislators. That is a unique quirk in our system, and it shows you the complexity of our US, state, federal system. So until there is a federal bill that–and then there’s different iterations of like CCPA 2.0, that Bill happens to be the law of the land or privacy in the US. I say all this to say that something similar is happening in AI, and that’s not surprising at all whatsoever. What I do find also interesting historically is tech is not always a bipartisan issue. We have such a dramatic change from the last administration, like I just said before, with what’s happening, with focusing on America first and deregulation, but Tech has been bipartisan in different ways, but for different reasons. The Republicans have their own reasons. The Democrats have their reasons, generally certainty and wanting to know what we can do for both companies and safety. Republicans do care about safety and consumers, and Democrats do care about businesses, so it’s not all or nothing. But what’s happening now is, in the States, there are hundreds, and I’m sure you can talk about this, Todd, and I want to steal any of your thunder, hundreds of AI bills that are introduced every other day, some that clearly might be unconstitutional, some that are never going anywhere. But in the US, bills can get introduced state or federal level to say, we are looking at this, we care and to have a conversation on it. There are some that that have passed and are causing concern, but to and maybe so I’ll let you go into that. But to answer your question, originally, about the EU AI act, no, I do not think that anything more regulatory is going to pass on a federal level. States may look for guidance and principles, particularly states that tend to not be Republican and want to say, we still have power, we still can do something, despite the fact that there is, what Todd said, a trifecta of a Republican House, Republican Congress and a Republican presidency. States that have a Democratic governor and democratic legislature are going to say we’re putting our minds in we are going to have this conversation. We are going to make sure that different concerns are being met, and they might be even more over regulatory to kind of make up for the pendulum swing. So that’s where I see the situation right now, with respect to states and federal legislation, there will not be a federal, well, I can’t say that. I still don’t think there will be a federal AI legislation. I don’t think that is a top priority in terms of a comprehensive legislation. Div, you mentioned, I think you did, or someone mentioned that the government is, you didn’t say this exactly, but they’ve been a first adopter in terms of that’s where the only agreement that could happen was, hey, the US, we can look at our own systems and see where I might be useful. There’s so many studies since before the Biden administration about efficient use of AI, safe use of AI. So the government has actually done a lot of work on how to use AI in a safe way, and potentially in a way that can be adopted by the other people. But that’s kind of the only place that legislation has even progressed in a way that you could say something could happen.

Ronan Murphy
I know. Yeah, no. Adoption is a key, a key factor in success. I think that that cancer, both sides the Atlantic. Todd, do you want to–do you want to pick up on anything Hillary said, or what you’ve heard so far?

Todd O’Boyle
Sure, I don’t know that I disagree with anything Hillary said. Hillary’s absolutely right. We saw, in the wake of California taking the initiative to create the California or the CCPA, the privacy regulator.States like Colorado passed their Colorado Privacy Act, and we have this, you know, well trod path from Brussels to blue states, and when we have seen that on things like competition policy. The California RE commission is–has proposed restrictions on preferencing vertical products, very similar to DMA, like restrictions. The New York State Senator Gianaris is proposing a so called abuse of dominance bill that would regulate online platforms. Most notably, last year, there was a great fulsome debate over Scott Wiener’s SB 1047, which would have created preemptory reasonable care requirements on foundation model developers. Governor Newsom obviously vetoed that, but Senator Wiener has made clear he’ll be trying again, and we’ve heard clearly that other blue state legislators will be running very similar bills this year. I will expand a bit on something that Hillary said, which is that I think the biggest development in AI policy at the state level in 2025 is the proliferation of risk based regulation at the application layer, which is not exactly synonymous, but certainly rhymes with core provisions of the EU AI act. Colorado passed SB 205, last year and again, imposing pre deployment impact assessments. Since then, no less than 11 states turned, Texas to Maryland have considered similar efforts. The thing that’s interesting to me is that this started purely as a blue state phenomenon, as Hillary was reflecting on. But Texas and Oklahoma are also looking at similar measures, and so we’re seeing this even in red states. I will, however, caution that Colorado is the first mover in this regard, is realizing just how regulatory the bill is and that it would impose a not insignificant compliance burden on the tech ecosystem in Colorado, and they’re actually adopting a pretty sweeping amendment to lighten its impact, or appear to be before their session gavels in on it. It remains to be seen whether other follow states will follow their their lead in sort of lightening that burden again, the you can and find yourself in a situation where sufficiently many states adopt something that you have a de facto national standard, and that’s clearly seems to be an effort at the state level regarding risk based AI regulation. But, how many states end up been acting, it is obviously an open question.

Ronan Murphy
Yeah. Thanks very much, Todd. I think minister, we might, we might come to you for a maybe a final word on this. We, Todd just alluded there, Colorado is introducing amendment to dramatically reduce regulatory overhead. Now we’ve heard about an omnibus bill in Brussels coming in on competitor–on some regulation, regulatory reduction in various industries, not, not specific necessarily, to AI, but maybe just address, because they’ve raised it, Hillary’s raised it, Todd’s raised it. And the regulatory landscape, where would you like to see it go? And maybe what’s your best hope for the for conclusion of your presidency, and into the Danish, you think that the Danish, I think the Danes are next presidency on AI, particularly from a regulatory standpoint? And what would you like to see happen?

Dariusz Standerski
Yeah, thank you. First, let me share a little bit different perspective, because, as I see now, the United States have much more AI regulation than the European Union, because in the European Union we have only the AI act. It was not implemented yet in any member state. So we have one law, for example, only in Polish regulatory system, we have even no single term AI in our all in Poland. So we are like AI regulation that’s desert and among other states. And as you mentioned that Colorado points to deregulate, for me is like the different dimension to be honest. And I believe that saying that the EU, the US innovates, the EU regulates, could not be the case in this area. However, what I believe that both regulations and investment need to go, from my point of view, in the European Union, we need to implement the AI act first together as a coherent legal system for all member states, because we need to create the environment in which company meeting standards for AI in one member state could offer its its products in 26 different member states in the in the European Union. That’s the goal. And that will be the main topic of artificial intelligence board that I will share in Brussels and tricks from now. And we will want to work on this. And we want also to add to this view lavish investments in the artificial intelligence and the third dimension is to establish sandboxes all around European Union, both within countries and internationally. And we already are working on Polish AI sandbox, and we will probably develop the second one with our German partners, because you need to explore and you need to conduct experiments, even with your innovation, before you will go fully, fully to the market. So I hope that investment, smart regulation in some places, deregulation could be, could be successful. And to add on the top of it, I believe that we need to also use new technologies within our administration, because it’s ridiculous to have 21st century technologies and 19th century procedures. It’s ridiculous that we have AI able to scan in real time, everything, what’s going on in the market, and 20 forms filled by our pen on the paper and sending to our offices. So for me, in this area, we have clear direction set by both presidency and European Commission. And what’s the challenge for now is to keep energy, to introduce it and to implement it in the broaden horizon. We have that energy, and we hope that we will share this. Energy also with other member states, because that would be with the advantage for all of us, for the European Union, for European entrepreneurs and for American companies, because they will be able to make even better offers to expand their their operation, because then use of AI will will be much, much broader than the than today, and also the new markets will appear. So I hope that those those reforms and those changes that are going right now will benefit all of us.

Ronan Murphy
Thank you very much, Minister, we look forward to seeing what comes out of the AI board in three weeks. And how you get on with the 100, 170 Draghi report recommendations, I think that’s the tally. Listen, thank you very much, Minister for joining us today. To Dave, to Todd, to Hillary. Um, really appreciate it. And you can check out more content on all of these topics on cepa.org. Thank you very much.