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.
Startup Figure AI is developing general-purpose humanoid robots.
Figure AI
Figure AI, an Nvidia-backed developer of humanoid robots, was sued by the startup’s former head of product safety who alleged that he was wrongfully terminated after warning top executives that the company’s robots “were powerful enough to fracture a human skull.”
Robert Gruendel, a principal robotic safety engineer, is the plaintiff in the suit filed Friday in a federal court in the Northern District of California. Gruendel’s attorneys describe their client as a whistleblower who was fired in September, days after lodging his “most direct and documented safety complaints.”
The suit lands two months after Figure was valued at $39 billion in a funding round led by Parkway Venture Capital. That’s a 15-fold increase in valuation from early 2024, when the company raised a round from investors including Jeff Bezos, Nvidia, and Microsoft.
In the complaint, Gruendel’s lawyers say the plaintiff warned Figure CEO Brett Adcock and Kyle Edelberg, chief engineer, about the robot’s lethal capabilities, and said one “had already carved a ¼-inch gash into a steel refrigerator door during a malfunction.”
The complaint also says Gruendel warned company leaders not to “downgrade” a “safety road map” that he had been asked to present to two prospective investors who ended up funding the company.
Gruendel worried that a “product safety plan which contributed to their decision to invest” had been “gutted” the same month Figure closed the investment round, a move that “could be interpreted as fraudulent,” the suit says.
The plaintiff’s concerns were “treated as obstacles, not obligations,” and the company cited a “vague ‘change in business direction’ as the pretext” for his termination, according to the suit.
Gruendel is seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages and demanding a jury trial.
Figure didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did attorneys for Gruendel.
The humanoid robot market remains nascent today, with companies like Tesla and Boston Dynamics pursuing futuristic offerings, alongside Figure, while China’s Unitree Robotics is preparing for an IPO. Morgan Stanley said in a report in May that adoption is “likely to accelerate in the 2030s” and could top $5 trillion by 2050.
Concerns about stock valuations in companies tied to artificial intelligence knocked the market around this week. Whether these worries will recede, as they did Friday, or flare up again will certainly be something to watch in the days and weeks ahead. We understand the concerns about valuations in the speculative aspects of the AI trade, such as nuclear stocks and neoclouds. Jim Cramer has repeatedly warned about them. But, in the past week, the broader AI cohort — including real companies that make money and are driving what many are calling the fourth industrial revolution — has been getting hit. We own many of them: Nvidia and Broadcom on the chip side, and GE Vernova and Eaton on the derivative trade of powering these energy-gobbling AI data centers. That’s not what should be happening based on their fundamentals. Outside of valuations, worries also center on capital expenditures and the depreciation that results from massive investments in AI infrastructure. On this point, investors face a choice. You can go with the bears who are glued to their spreadsheets and extrapolating the usable life of tech assets based on history, a seemingly understandable approach, and applying those depreciation rates to their financial models, arguing the chips should be near worthless after three years. Or, you can go with the commentary from management teams running the largest companies driving the AI trade, and what Jim has gleaned from talking with the smartest CEOs in the world. When it comes to the real players driving this AI investment cycle, like the ones we’re invested in, we don’t think valuations are all that high or unreasonable when you consider their growth rates and importance to the U.S., and by extension, the global economy. We’re talking about Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who would tell you that advancements in his company’s CUDA software have extended the life of GPU chip platforms to roughly five to six years. Don’t forget, CoreWeave recently re-contracted for H100s from Nvidia, which were released in late 2022. The bears with their spreadsheets would tell you those chips are worthless. However, we know that H100s have held most of their value. Or listen to Lisa Su, CEO of Advanced Micro Devices , who said last week that her customers are at the point now where “they can see the return on the other side” of these massive investments. For our part, we understand the spending concerns and the depreciation issues that will arise if these companies are indeed overstating the useful lives of these assets. However, those who have bet against the likes of Jensen Huang and Lisa Su, or Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others who have driven innovation in the tech world for over a decade, have been burned time and again. While the bears’ concerns aren’t invalid, long-term investors are better off taking their cues from technology experts. AI is real, and it will increasingly lead to productivity gains as adoption ramps up and the technology becomes ingrained in our everyday lives, just as the internet has. We have faith in the management teams of the AI stocks in which we are invested, and while faith is not an investment strategy, that faith is based on a historical track record of strong execution, the knowledge that offerings from these companies are best in class, and scrutiny of their underlying business fundamentals and financial profiles. Siding with these technology expert management teams, over the loud financial expert bears, has kept us on the right side of the trade for years, and we don’t see that changing in the future. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust, including NVDA, AVGO, GEV, ETN, META, MSFT.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Every weekday, the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer releases the Homestretch — an actionable afternoon update, just in time for the last hour of trading on Wall Street. Markets: The S & P 500 bounced back Friday, recovering from the prior session’s sharp losses. The broad-based index, which was still tracking for a nearly 1.5% weekly decline, started off the session a little shaky as Club stock Nvidia drifted lower after the open. It was looking like concerns about the artificial intelligence trade, which have been dogging the market, were going to dominate back-to-back sessions. But when New York Federal Reserve President John Williams suggested that central bankers could cut interest rates for a third time this year, the market jumped higher. Rate-sensitive stocks saw big gains Friday. Home Depot rose more than 3.5% on the day, mitigating a tough week following Tuesday’s lackluster quarterly release. Eli Lilly hit an all-time high, becoming the first drugmaker to reach a $1 trillion market cap. TJX also topped its all-time high after the off-price retailer behind T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods, delivered strong quarterly results Wednesday. Carry trade: We’re also monitoring developments in Japan, which is dealing with its own inflation problem and questions about whether to resume interest rate hikes. That brings us to the popular Japanese yen carry trade, which is getting squeezed as borrowing costs there are rising. The yen carry trade involves borrowing yen at a low rate, then converting them into, say, dollars, and investing in higher-yielding foreign assets. That’s all well and good when the cost to borrow yen is low. It’s a different story now that borrowing costs in Japan are hitting 30-year highs. When rates rise, the profit margin on the carry trade gets crunched, or vanishes completely. As a result, investors need to get out, which means forced selling and price action that becomes divorced from fundamentals. It’s unclear if any of this is adding pressure to U.S. markets. We didn’t see anything in the recent quarterly earnings reports from U.S. companies to suggest corporate fundamentals are deteriorating in any meaningful way. That’s why we’re looking for other potential external factors, alongside the well-known concerns about artificial intelligence spending, the depreciation resulting from those capital expenditures, and general worries about consumer sentiment and inflation here in America. Wall Street call: HSBC downgraded Palo Alto Networks to a sell-equivalent rating from a hold following the company’s quarterly earnings report Wednesday. Analysts, who left their $157 price target unchanged, cited decelerating sales growth as the driver of the rerating, describing the quarter as “sufficient, not transformational.” Still, the Club name delivered a beat-and-raise quarter, which topped estimates across every key metric. None of this stopped Palo Alto shares from falling on the release. We chalked the post-earnings decline up to high expectations heading into the quarter, coupled with investor concerns over a new acquisition of cloud management and monitoring company Chronosphere. Palo Alto is still working to close its multi-billion-dollar acquisition of identity security company CyberArk , announced in July. HSBC now argues the stock’s risk-versus-reward is turning negative, with limited potential for upward estimate revisions for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. We disagree with HSBC’s call, given the momentum we’re seeing across Palo Alto’s businesses. The cybersecurity leader is dominating through its “platformization” strategy, which bundles its products and services. Plus, Palo Alto keeps adding net new platformizations each quarter, converting customers to use its security platform, and is on track to reach its fiscal 2030 target. We also like management’s playbook for acquiring businesses just before they see an industry inflection point. With Chronosphere, Palo Alto believes the entire observability industry needs to change due to the growing presence of AI. We’re reiterating our buy-equivalent 1 rating and $225 price target on the stock. Up next: There are no Club earnings reports next week. Outside of the portfolio, Symbotic, Zoom Communications , Semtech , and Fluence Energy will report after Monday’s close. Wall Street will also get a slew of delayed economic data during the shortened holiday trading week. U.S. retail sales and September’s consumer price index are scheduled for release early Tuesday. Durable goods orders and the Conference Board consumer sentiment are released on Wednesday morning. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.