U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and French President Emmanuel Macron.
Kin Cheung | Pool | Getty Images
LONDON — Two countries are jockeying for position as Europe’s capital for artificial intelligence.
Both French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have made bold statements about AI in recent weeks, as each tries to claim a stake in the highly hyped market.
“I think we are number one [in AI] in continental Europe, and we have to accelerate,” Macron told CNBC’s Karen Tso at France’s annual tech conference Viva Tech on June 18, while Sunak pitched the U.K. as the “geographical home of global AI safety regulation” at the London Tech Week conference on June 12.
AI is seen as revolutionary and therefore of strategic importance to governments around the world.
Hype around the technology has been partly sparked by the viral nature of Microsoft-backed OpenAI’s ChatGPT. It has also been the source of tech tensions between the U.S. and China as countries around the world try to harness the potential of the most critical technologies.
So, who is leading the race to take Europe’s AI crown?
Money matters
At VivaTech in Paris, Macron announced 500 million euros ($562 million) in new funding to create new AI “champions.” This comes on top of previous commitments from the government, including a promise to pump 1.5 billion euros into artificial intelligence before 2022, in an attempt to catch up with the U.S. and Chinese markets.
“We will invest like crazy on training and research,” Macron told CNBC, adding that France is well-positioned in AI due to its access to talent and startups forming around the technology.
In March, the U.K. government pledged £1 billion ($1.3 billion) to supercomputing and AI research, as it looks to become a “science and technology superpower.”
As part of the strategy, the government said it wanted to spend around £900 million on building an “exascale” computer capable of building its own “BritGPT,” which would rival OpenAI’s generative AI chatbot.
However, some officials have criticized the funding pledge, saying it’s not enough to help the U.K. compete with titans like the U.S. and China.
“It sounds great but it’s nowhere near where we need to be,” Sajid Javid, a former government minister in ex-PM Boris Johnson’s cabinet, said in a fireside discussion at London Tech Week.
Policing A.I. abuses
One big difference between the U.K. and France is how each country is opting to regulate artificial intelligence, and the laws already in place that affect the quick-moving technology.
The European Union has its AI Act, which is set to be the first comprehensive set of laws focusing on artificial intelligence in the West. The legislation was approved by lawmakers in the European Parliament in June.
It assesses different applications of AI based on risk — for example, real-time biometric identification and social scoring systems are considered as posing “unacceptable risk,” and are therefore banned under the regulation.
France will be under direct jurisdiction of the AI Act, and it would be “unsurprising” if the relevant French regulator, either the CNIL or a new, AI-specific regulator, took an “aggressive approach” to its enforcement, according to Minesh Tanna, global AI lead at international law firm Simmons & Simmons.
In the U.K., rather than issue AI-specific laws, the government launched a white paper advising various industry regulators on how they should enforce existing rules on their respective sectors. The white paper takes a principles-based approach to regulating AI.
The government has touted the framework as a “flexible” approach to regulation, which Tanna described as more “pro-innovation” than the French method.
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” he added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said.
Who will win?
“France definitely has a chance to be the leader in Europe, but it faces stiff competition from Germany and the U.K.,” Anton Dahbura, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Assured Autonomy, told CNBC via email.
Alexandre Lebrun, CEO of Nabla, an AI “copilot” for doctors, said the U.K. and France are “probably even” when it comes to attractiveness for starting an AI company.
“There’s a good talent pool, strongholds like Google and Facebook AI research centers, and a reasonable local market,” he told CNBC, but he warned that the EU AI Act would make it “impossible” for startups to build AI in the EU.
“If at the same time the U.K. adopts a smarter law, it will definitely win against EU and France,” Lebrun added.
At the same time, London has been the source of a lot of doom and gloom from some corners of the industry, who’ve criticized the country for being an unattractive place for tech entrepreneurs.
Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour party, told attendees at London Tech Week that a series of political crises in the country has dented investor sentiment on tech generally.
“Many investors say to me we are not investing in the U.K. right now because we don’t see the conditions of certainty politically that we need in order to invest,” Starmer said.
Claire Trachet, CFO of French tech startup YesWeHack, said the U.K. and France both have potential to challenge the dominance of U.S. AI giants — but it’s just as much about collaboration across Europe as it is competition between different hubs.
“It would require a concerted and collective effort of European tech superpowers,” she said. “To truly make a meaningful impact, they must leverage their collective resources, foster collaboration, and invest in nurturing a robust ecosystem.”
“Combining strengths — particularly with Germany’s involvement — could allow them to create a compelling alternative in the next 10-15 years that disrupts the AI landscape, but again, this would require a heavily strategic vision and collaborative approach,” Trachet added.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears at the Meta Connect event in Menlo Park, California, Sept. 25, 2024.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg slammed rival tech giant Apple for lackluster innovation efforts and “random rules” in a lengthy podcast interview on Friday.
“On the one hand, [the iPhone has] been great, because now pretty much everyone in the world has a phone, and that’s kind of what enables pretty amazing things,” Zuckerberg said in an episode of the “Joe Rogan Experience.” “But on the other hand … they have used that platform to put in place a lot of rules that I think feel arbitrary and [I] feel like they haven’t really invented anything great in a while. It’s like Steve Jobs invented the iPhone, and now they’re just kind of sitting on it 20 years later.”
Zuckerberg added that he thought iPhone sales were struggling because consumers are taking longer to upgrade their phones because new models aren’t big improvements from prior iterations.
“So how are they making more money as a company? Well, they do it by basically, like, squeezing people, and, like you’re saying, having this 30% tax on developers by getting you to buy more peripherals and things that plug into it,” Zuckerberg said. “You know, they build stuff like Air Pods, which are cool, but they’ve just thoroughly hamstrung the ability for anyone else to build something that can connect to the iPhone in the same way.”
Apple defends itself from pushback from other companies by saying that it doesn’t want to violate consumers’ privacy and security, according to Zuckerberg. But he said that the problem would be solved if Apple fixed its protocol, like building better security and using encryption.
“It’s insecure because you didn’t build any security into it. And then now you’re using that as a justification for why only your product can connect in an easy way,” Zuckerberg said.
Zuckerberg said that if Apple stopped applying its “random rules,” Meta’s profit would double.
He also took shots at Apple’s Vision Pro headset, which had disappointing U.S. sales. Meta sells its own virtual headsets called the Meta Quest.
“I think the Vision Pro is, I think, one of the bigger swings at doing a new thing that they tried in a while,” Zuckerberg said. “And I don’t want to give them too hard of a time on it, because we do a lot of things where the first version isn’t that good, and you want to kind of judge the third version of it. But I mean, the V1, it definitely did not hit it out of the park.”
“I heard it’s really good for watching movies,” he added.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.
Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement this week that Meta would pivot its moderation policies to allow more “free expression” was widely viewed as the company’s latest effort to appease President-elect Donald Trump.
More than any of its Silicon Valley peers, Meta has taken numerous public steps to make amends with Trump since his election victory in November.
That follows a highly contentious four years between the two during Trump’s first term in office, which ended with Facebook — similar to other social media companies — banning Trump from its platform.
As recently as March, Trump was using his preferred nickname of “Zuckerschmuck” when talking about Meta’s CEO and declaring that Facebook was an “enemy of the people.”
With Meta now positioning itself to be a key player in artificial intelligence, Zuckerberg recognizes the need for White House support as his company builds data centers and pursues policies that will allow it to fulfill its lofty ambitions, according to people familiar with the company’s plans who asked not to be named because they weren’t authorized to speak on the matter.
“Even though Facebook is as powerful as it is, it still had to bend the knee to Trump,” said Brian Boland, a former Facebook vice president, who left the company in 2020.
Meta declined to comment for this article.
In Tuesday’s announcement, Zuckerberg said Meta will end third-party fact-checking, remove restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity and bring political content back to users’ feeds. Zuckerberg pitched the sweeping policy changes as key to stabilizing Meta’s content-moderation apparatus, which he said had “reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”
The policy change was the latest strategic shift Meta has taken to buddy up with Trump and Republicans since Election Day.
A day earlier, Meta announced that UFC CEO Dana White, a longtime Trump friend, is joining the company’s board.
And last week, Meta announced that it was replacing Nick Clegg, its president of global affairs, with Joel Kaplan, who had been the company’s policy vice president. Clegg previously had a career in British politics with the Liberal Democrats party, including as a deputy prime minister, while Kaplan was a White House deputy chief of staff under former President George W. Bush.
Kaplan, who joined Meta in 2011 when it was still known as Facebook, has longstanding ties to the Republican Party and once worked as a law clerk for the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In December, Kaplan posted photos on Facebook of himself with Vice President-elect JD Vance and Trump during their visit to the New York Stock Exchange.
Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s vice president of global policy, on April 17, 2018.
Niall Carson | PA Images | Getty Images
Many Meta employees criticized the policy change internally, with some saying the company is absolving itself of its responsibility to create a safe platform. Current and former employees also expressed concern that marginalized communities could face more online abuse due to the new policy, which is set to take effect over the coming weeks.
Despite the backlash from employees, people familiar with the company’s thinking said Meta is more willing to make these kinds of moves after laying off 21,000 employees, or nearly a quarter of its workforce, in 2022 and 2023.
Those cuts affected much of Meta’s civic integrity and trust and safety teams. The civic integrity group was the closest thing the company had to a white-collar union, with members willing to push back against certain policy decisions, former employees said. Since the job cuts, Zuckerberg faces less friction when making broad policy changes, the people said.
Zuckerberg’s overtures to Trump began in the months leading up to the election.
Following the first assassination attempt on Trump in July, Zuckerberg called the photo of Trump raising his fist with blood running down his face “one of the most badass things I’ve ever seen in my life.”
A month later, Zuckerberg penned a letter to the House Judiciary Committee alleging that the Biden administration had pressured Meta’s teams to censor certain Covid-19 content.
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” he wrote.
After Trump’s presidential victory, Zuckerberg joined several other technology executives who visited the president-elect’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Meta also donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.
On Friday, Meta revealed to its workforce in a memo obtained by CNBC that it intends to shutter several internal programs related to diversity and inclusion in its hiring process, representing another Trump-friendly move.
The previous day, some details of the company’s new relaxed content-moderation guidelines were published by the news site The Intercept, showing the kind of offensive rhetoric that Meta’s new policy would now allow, including statements such as “Migrants are no better than vomit” and “I bet Jorge’s the one who stole my backpack after track practice today. Immigrants are all thieves.”
Recalibrating for Trump
Zuckerberg, who has been dragged to Washington eight times to testify before congressional committees during the last two administrations, wants to be perceived as someone who can work with Trump and the Republican Party, people familiar with the matter said.
Though Meta’s content-policy updates caught many of its employees and fact-checking partners by surprise, a small group of executives were formulating the plans in the aftermath of the U.S. election results. By New Year’s Day, leadership began planning the public announcements of its policy change, the people said.
Meta typically undergoes major “recalibrations” after prominent U.S. elections, said Katie Harbath, a former Facebook policy director and CEO of tech consulting firm Anchor Change. When the country undergoes a change in power, Meta adjusts its policies to best suit its business and reputational needs based on the political landscape, Harbath said.
“In 2028, they’ll recalibrate again,” she said.
After the 2016 election and Trump’s first victory, for example, Zuckerberg toured the U.S. to meet people in states he hadn’t previously visited. He published a 6,000-word manifesto emphasizing the need for Facebook to build more community.
The social media company faced harsh criticism about fake news and Russian election interference on its platforms after the 2016 election.
Following the 2020 election, during the heart of the pandemic, Meta took a harder stand on Covid-19 content, with a policy executive saying in 2021 that the “amount of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation that violates our policies is too much by our standards.” Those efforts may have appeased the Biden administration, but it drew the ire of Republicans.
Meta is once again reacting to the moment, Harbath said.
“There wasn’t a business risk here in Silicon Valley to be more right-leaning,” Harbath said.
While Trump has offered few specific policy proposals for his second administration, Meta has plenty at stake.
The White House could create more relaxed AI regulations compared with those in the European Union, where Meta says harsh restrictions have resulted in the company not releasing some of its more advanced AI technologies. Meta, like other tech giants, also needs more massive data centers and cutting-edge computer chips to help train and run their advanced AI models.
“There’s a business benefit to having Republicans win, because they are traditionally less regulatory,” Harbath said.
Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg reacts as he testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on online child sexual exploitation at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 31, 2024.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters
Meta isn’t alone in trying to cozy up to Trump. But the extreme measures the company is taking reflects a particular level of animus expressed by Trump over the years.
Trump has accused Meta of censorship and has expressed resentment over the company’s two-year suspension of his Facebook and Instagram accounts following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
In July 2024, Trump posted on Truth Social that he intended to “pursue Election Fraudsters at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time,” adding “ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!” Trump reiterated that statement in his book, “Save America,” writing that Zuckerberg plotted against him during the 2020 election and that the Meta CEO would “spend the rest of his life in prison” if it happened again.
Meta spends $14 million annually on providing personal security for Zuckerberg and his family, according to the company’s 2024 proxy statement. As part of that security, the company analyzes any threats or perceived threats against its CEO, according to a person familiar with the matter. Those threats are cataloged, analyzed and dissected by Meta’s multitude of security teams.
After Trump’s comments, Meta’s security teams analyzed how Trump could weaponize the Justice Department and the country’s intelligence agencies against Zuckerberg and what it would cost the company to defend its CEO against a sitting president, said the person, who asked not to be named because of confidentiality.
Meta’s efforts to appease the incoming president bring their own risks.
After Zuckerberg announced the new speech policy Tuesday, Boland, the former executive, was among a number of users who took to Meta’s Threads service to tell their followers that they were quitting Facebook.
“Last post before deleting,” Boland wrote in his post.
Before the post could be seen by any of his Threads followers, Meta’s content moderation system had taken it down, citing cybersecurity reasons.
Boland told CNBC in an interview that he couldn’t help but chuckle at the situation.
“It’s deeply ironic,” Boland said.
— CNBC’s Salvador Rodriguez contributed to this report.
Apple is losing market share in China due to declining iPhone shipments, supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote in a report on Friday. The stock slid 2.4%.
“Apple has adopted a cautious stance when discussing 2025 iPhone production plans with key suppliers,” Kuo, an analyst at TF Securities, wrote in the post. He added that despite the expected launch of the new iPhone SE 4, shipments are expected to decline 6% year over year for the first half of 2025.
Kuo expects Apple’s market share to continue to slide, as two of the coming iPhones are so thin that they likely will only support eSIM, which the Chinese market currently does not promote.
“These two models could face shipping momentum challenges unless their design is modified,” he wrote.
Kuo wrote that in December, overall smartphone shipments in China were flat from a year earlier, but iPhone shipments dropped 10% to 12%.
There is also “no evidence” that Apple Intelligence, the company’s on-device artificial intelligence offering, is driving hardware upgrades or services revenue, according to Kuo. He wrote that the feature “has not boosted iPhone replacement demand,” according to a supply chain survey he conducted, and added that in his view, the feature’s appeal “has significantly declined compared to cloud-based AI services, which have advanced rapidly in subsequent months.”
Apple’s estimated iPhone shipments total about 220 million units for 2024 and between about 220 million and 225 million for this year, Kuo wrote. That is “below the market consensus of 240 million or more,” he wrote.
Apple did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.