Artificial intelligence has become a strategic priority in the USA—both a tool of economic dominance and a component of geopolitics. Europe tends to focus more on definitions and regulations, which brings greater protection but also a slowdown. The differences are also cultural: in America, failure is part of learning; in Europe, it is more of a stigma.
Regulation, politics, and deployment outcomes
The USA does not have a unified federal AI regulation, but dozens of states have adopted partial rules. Instead of a single framework, a tangle of small rules for individual subtopics emerges, which outwardly looks like 'non-regulation,' yet in practice is complicated. Politics plays a major role: at the federal level there is a prevailing resistance to new regulations, while at the local level voters often support reasonable constraints.
Economic outcomes are so far falling short of expectations: according to the cited statistics, over 95% of implementation projects are unsuccessful in terms of return on investment. Companies often act out of FOMO—the fear of missing out—without a clear idea of what and why to automate. Plans to build huge data centers full of AI chips are also growing massively, with power consumption comparable to that of a large city, yet with rapid obsolescence of the hardware. After the initial hype, a comedown similar to the dot-com era may follow, after which a slower but more meaningful growth ensues.
Security, geopolitics, and Asia
AI is now part of most U.S. defense and intelligence systems—from cyber defense to autonomous platforms. Although there is talk of a 'centralized' approach, the reality is granular: dozens of federal security agencies and 18 statutorily recognized intelligence services operate relatively independently. On the global stage, AI is a strategic technology of the 21st century that shapes sanctions, export controls, and technological diplomacy. The United States is introducing categories of countries for the export of advanced chips, which directly affects the flow of technologies and the balance of power.
Asia offers different models. China combines state and private investment with a long-term horizon and less pressure for quick returns, proceeding persistently and systematically. Japan is a hybrid between the EU and the USA: looser rules, support for innovation, and gradual steps. South Korea and Singapore move between the two poles, confirming that there is no universal solution. The key dilemma remains the balance between data protection and the pace of development—Europe leans toward protection, America toward progress, and the optimal middle path is still being sought.
