Dr. Christoph Strnadl

The EU AI Act with its pioneering risk-based approach, sets a precedent for regulating AI by categorising applications based on their potential risks to individuals and society. By establishing clear guidelines for high-risk AI systems whilst imposing outright bans on some risks like social scoring, the Act seeks to balance ethics with AI development. However, stringent regulations risk presents some trade-offs, like having high compliance burdens for SMEs and startups, which can stifle innovation, pushing talent and investment to more business-friendly AI regions, and limiting Europe’s AI leadership.  
1. Navigating the EU AI Act: How can regulators ensure the EU remains an AI leader while implementing risk-tiered regulations that prevent harm without stifling technological progress?  
2. Competitiveness vs Overregulation: With global AI competition intensifying, what policy strategies can ensure that AI startups and enterprises thrive without unnecessary compliance burdens?  
3. Ethical AI as a competitive advantage: Can responsible AI practices become a strategic differentiator for European companies, positioning them as global leaders in trustworthy, human-centric AI deployment?  

European policymakers are actively seeking to reduce reliance on overseas technology giants while fostering homegrown AI innovation, with initiatives such as the EU Chips Act, the EU AI Act, Gaia-X and stricter data localisation laws. Does Europe’s push for digital independence enable a more competitive technology ecosystem or does it risk creating new regulatory and technological barriers that stifle cross-border technology collaboration?
1. How can Europe lead a third way in AI development, offering an alternative model to the Big-Tech driven US approach and China’s state-led AI ecosystem?
2. Trade-offs of Europe’s AI decoupling strategy and its impact on AI research, enterprise adoption, cross-border innovation
3. What are the steps Europe can take to mobilise and invest in the capabilities, skills, and partnerships needed to drive digital sovereignty efforts?