Trade a shrine for a compass
By upholding the dignity of human beings and illuminating the world, Europe cannot afford to stand apart from machines
Robots find themselves caught between apocalyptic prophecies and promises of salvation. Undoubtedly, the deployment of this technology suffers from caricatures that are endlessly repeated. Finding a reasonable and nuanced path forward is a daunting challenge. It’s an understatement to say that artificial intelligence dominates the media landscape and dominates conversations. Throughout 2022, the oxymoron was cited 25,000 times across all French media, print, TV, radio, and the web, according to the Tagaday platform. In 2025, that number was nearly 15 times higher, at 330,000 mentions. With 260,000 mentions as of June 30, 2026 is poised to break all records. No discussion, whether in businesses, universities, or even at the local café, escapes this topic. At the risk of causing information overload and backlash.
Eric Schmidt recently learned this the hard way. Invited to present diplomas to students at the University of Arizona, the former Google CEO didn’t see the backlash coming. No sooner had he uttered the two magic letters, “AI,” than he was booed. Faced with immense social, economic, and environmental risks, the wave of protest is gaining momentum. Whether some claim they hold a nuclear bomb in their hands or others take to the stage to announce that 80% of jobs will disappear in the short term, these are undoubtedly effective ways to grab attention. But not to sustain it. Fear is never a good guide.
We always prefer the compass to the wall
Sanctuaries. Amid the ceaseless flood of new releases and books, one essay stands out because it is well-structured, thoughtful, well-argued, and iconoclastic. With *Sanctuaires* (Editions de l’Observatoire), Abel Quentin takes on the role of a pamphleteer and issues a call for self-defense against generative artificial intelligence, urging clarity of thought to escape fear and “regain control of our narrative.” While we share his concern for the primacy of the human, our methods for asserting it differ. The disagreements here do not stem from the diagnosis but from the remedy. In his view, Europe must become a sanctuary for the world in order to better “absorb shocks” and “not run every sprint.” Calling for a “right not to use” technology, Abel Quentin advocates for ambitious regulation. While the author denounces “the trickery of technology” that “denies the continuum,” his sanctuary paradoxically resembles a compartment. Unfortunately, slowing down and scaling back would deprive our continent, a land of builders, explorers, and visionaries, of any chance to compete with the two highly efficient digital powerhouses that China and the United States have become.
The promise of a new Eden might be tempting; Abel Quentin calls for a “free zone” where “100% human, elevated to the status of pride,” in his new garden “flourishes without facing competition from chatbots,” even as he takes care to distinguish between uses, sparing medical research while condemning generative AI for the general public. Yet erecting borders is precisely the opposite of Europe, a land of welcome and openness.
We always prefer the compass to the wall when it comes to open, robust, and human-centered technologies. Better than a sanctuary, Europe, if it wants to be convincing, must enlighten the world and fuel debate.
This article was originally published in French in l’Opinion