AI governance could be much more relevant in the EU, if the EU was willing to regulate ASML. Tell ASML they can only service compliant semiconductor foundries, where a “compliant semicondunctor foundry” is defined as a foundry which only allows its chips to be used by compliant AI companies.
I think this is a really promising path for slower, more responsible AI development globally. The EU is known for its cautious approach to regulation. Many EAs believe that a cautious, risk-averse approach to AI development is appropriate. Yet EU regulations are often viewed as less important, since major AI firms are mostly outside the EU. However, ASML is located in the EU, and serves as a chokepoint for the entire AI industry. Regulating ASML addresses the standard complaint that “AI firms will simply relocate to the most permissive jurisdiction”. Advocating this path could be a high-leverage way to make global AI development more responsible without the need for an international treaty.
That said, there are also a few caveats: - At the moment it is actually the Dutch government, not the EU, that is responsible for export controls and which places ASML is allowed to export to and what kinds of restrictions need to be put on that. - Increasingly, things like export controls are also bypassing European jurisdictions because the U.S. is applying ever more control over the entire supply chain through new legislation that gives them the right to implement export controls on products that contain only a relatively small amount of U.S.-made goods. On the other hand, that is obviously not total control, and the fact that the Atlantic alliance is not in the strongest shape right now might actually indicate that the EU might be willing to move more independently on this in the future. - Unfortunately, there is much less awareness of the long-term geopolitical importance of AI in EU capitals. So the theory of change most people working on this now follow is something like: first raise awareness of this being an important issue, simultaneously raise awareness of this being a leverage point in the chip supply chain, and then start advocating for these regulations. - ASML is also a company that might threaten to relocate to a more permissive jurisdiction. Now, I don’t see that happening very quickly, but it is worth thinking about as a consideration.
I am just seeing this, and I would love to have a conversation around this with you.
Going through the fairness of how AI organizations have been so far, I think not just the EU needs this, but globally, as we need a regulation of how some agents are being built
AI governance could be much more relevant in the EU, if the EU was willing to regulate ASML. Tell ASML they can only service compliant semiconductor foundries, where a “compliant semicondunctor foundry” is defined as a foundry which only allows its chips to be used by compliant AI companies.
I think this is a really promising path for slower, more responsible AI development globally. The EU is known for its cautious approach to regulation. Many EAs believe that a cautious, risk-averse approach to AI development is appropriate. Yet EU regulations are often viewed as less important, since major AI firms are mostly outside the EU. However, ASML is located in the EU, and serves as a chokepoint for the entire AI industry. Regulating ASML addresses the standard complaint that “AI firms will simply relocate to the most permissive jurisdiction”. Advocating this path could be a high-leverage way to make global AI development more responsible without the need for an international treaty.
Yes! 😄 Some of us are working on exactly this!
That said, there are also a few caveats:
- At the moment it is actually the Dutch government, not the EU, that is responsible for export controls and which places ASML is allowed to export to and what kinds of restrictions need to be put on that.
- Increasingly, things like export controls are also bypassing European jurisdictions because the U.S. is applying ever more control over the entire supply chain through new legislation that gives them the right to implement export controls on products that contain only a relatively small amount of U.S.-made goods. On the other hand, that is obviously not total control, and the fact that the Atlantic alliance is not in the strongest shape right now might actually indicate that the EU might be willing to move more independently on this in the future.
- Unfortunately, there is much less awareness of the long-term geopolitical importance of AI in EU capitals. So the theory of change most people working on this now follow is something like: first raise awareness of this being an important issue, simultaneously raise awareness of this being a leverage point in the chip supply chain, and then start advocating for these regulations.
- ASML is also a company that might threaten to relocate to a more permissive jurisdiction. Now, I don’t see that happening very quickly, but it is worth thinking about as a consideration.
Hi Ebenezer,
I am just seeing this, and I would love to have a conversation around this with you.
Going through the fairness of how AI organizations have been so far, I think not just the EU needs this, but globally, as we need a regulation of how some agents are being built