Has anyone at CEA ever looked systematically at the near-misses: the people who came to one or two meetings and never came back? The success stories are striking, but without some comparison group it's hard to tell how much is the group's doing and how much is that ambitious people at those universities end up in those roles regardless. Even an informal follow-up on the handful of drop-out names you can still remember would say something.

Not that I need this to be convinced, the anecdote here is striking enough, I'm mostly just curious. 

⬆️ The future we are all dreaming of! 

(I hope sharing of what is essentially a meme is allowed here)

Out of curiosity, where are you hosting this for free? 

This is only part of the point you are making, but worth pulling apart: the Omnibus processes, which have slightly deregulated AI, are a different thing from the fast-tracking and permitting of data centres, which as far as I understand has received no interest from the US government.

I'd also add that the authors want Europe to stay economically competitive through using AI, whereas the US government is looking out for its own companies. And yes, some of the AI Europe adopts will be American-owned. But if that adoption keeps the EU economy strong, the two aren't necessarily in conflict.

Hi Sarah! I have more to say on this, and this comment may sound more dismissive than I intend it to, because I don't have the time right now to respond in full (and I'll be honest: I can't promise I'll make the time later either).

But a few things I'd say for now:

1. The scenario is a story, and all narrative scenarios are. It is not presented as inevitable, otherwise there would be no point in writing it. It's a possible world we could end up in if nothing changes in Europe. The point is not to paint a full analytical picture; the point is to change minds and inspire action. So I don't think it's quite right to hold it to the standard of a rigorous analytical exercise: it's a different tool for a different job. The fire alarm is not the same as the fire-safety report. Of course the questions you raise are absolutely legitimate and important to discuss, but I would put back to you: have you actually seen less of this kind of discussion since Europe 2031 came out? Or has it sparked more debate about how to generate European agency, and what we should use that agency for?

2. The scenario clearly describes itself as having a narrow focus on purpose. The scenario is exclusively about maintaining European agency, and says nothing about how to use that agency once it has been achieved or strengthened. But that is a scope choice, not a statement of what the authors care about. The FAQ addresses your concern almost directly:

We realise our scenario focuses almost exclusively on European sovereignty, and only briefly touches on many other aspects of the AI transition, some of which are arguably more pressing. This was deliberate. We believe Europe must preserve its agency and leverage if it is to do anything at all, which includes mitigating AI risks.

We embarked on this project partly because we think a more empowered Europe will, on the current margin, lead to a safer and better AI transition. Europe has a strong track record as a defender of fundamental rights and values, including in AI. We strongly support the AI Act's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, and the EU's expert-led process that led to it. We believe a strong Europe can act as a more responsible and positive-sum counterbalance to major powers, while a weak Europe can't.

We have spoken candidly about AI security and safety before. To avoid any misinterpretation, let us be very clear: we believe there is a serious chance that advanced AI goes badly wrong, whether through cyber- or biological misuse, extreme concentration of power, or a failure to align AI systems with human values. In the worst cases, this could lead to human extinction or its permanent disempowerment.

These risks are widely discussed, including in authoritative works like the International AI Safety Report. Our story is by no means an attempt to dismiss them. Rather, we hope to empower Europe so that it can, among other things, mitigate these risks from a position of strength.

3. On power concentration and international coordination: These are super important, but you can't do much about them without agency. Europe being "AI colonized" and losing its agency to a handful of foreign companies and states, is itself one of the forms of power concentration the scenario is trying to get Europe to defend against. Building European leverage is, in part, a hedge against exactly that concentration, as well as a way to gain the agency to combat other problems. 

For a nice description of how unreasonably effective this kind of fictional account can be, I'd recommend this post too.
 

 I think this is a great initiative, and I'm happy that you're pursuing it. But I think it is particularly impressive how much amazing design work went into this website! 

Just wanted to say: I read this when it was first posted and I still come back to it regularly. Really grateful you shared this.

One of my very minor complaints about EAG is that they give out T-shirts that I would not normally want to wear in daily life. I now have three (admittedly very nice) pyjama T-shirts from conferences. This is nice! But I would love to have a simple shirt with a small logo that I can wear in everyday life, not just at home. It would actually get more exposure than the current T-shirts do!

For inspiration, a subtle range of T-shirts from Cortex. Just imagine the small heart-lightbulb there!

I agree that Amsterdam is a good option, but if you are interested in AI policy, Brussels now has a very active ecosystem, most of which is quite EA-oriented. Oddly enough, this is completely separate from the Belgian EA ecosystem.

Can you share how you have set this up?