New Delhi: The recent AI Action Summit in Paris has once again exposed the deep fractures in global AI governance. While 61 nations, including France, China, and India, signed a declaration calling for “open, inclusive, and ethical” AI, two major players—the United States and the United Kingdom—chose to stay out. Their refusal to sign is a reflection of an escalating contest for control.

Whether we agree or are in blissful ignorance, AI is a strategic asset in a geopolitical power struggle. The question is no longer whether AI should be regulated but who will control its rules.

AI regulation is fast becoming a proxy for global influence, with major economies adopting starkly different approaches:

* The United States has shifted from a laissez-faire model to aggressive techno-nationalism. Washington is tightening export controls, restricting AI model access to foreign entities, and considering licensing frameworks to protect its dominance while curbing China’s ambitions. Yet, it remains opposed to heavy-handed regulation, fearing it could stifle innovation and weaken its competitive edge.

* The European Union has taken the opposite path, imposing some of the world’s most stringent AI regulations through the AI Act. The EU’s risk-based compliance framework prioritises safety, transparency, and ethics. However, this bureaucratic-heavy approach may drive AI talent and investments elsewhere, weakening its technological competitiveness.

* China has seamlessly integrated AI into its state-controlled model. For Beijing, AI is a tool of national strategy—governing economic, military, and surveillance interests. Unlike the West, where AI governance is a battle between corporations and regulators, China’s AI sector operates under tight state control, with strict censorship laws and government-mandated priorities.

These divergent regulatory approaches are now fragmenting the........

© News9Live