Open letter criticises the Commission President for remarks earlier this year – when she anticipated AI would “approach human reasoning” in 2026
A group of scientists has called on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to retract a statement she made earlier this year when she suggested artificial intelligence would soon reach parity with human intelligence.
“We thought AI would only approach human reasoning around 2050,” von der Leyen said at the annual EU budget conference in May. “Now we expect this to happen already next year.”
In an open letter addressed to von der Leyen on Monday, more than 70 scientists call out the EU’s president for hyping AI, including two members of the UN’s high-level advisory body on AI.
Following a request from the group of scientists, the Commission disclosed that von der Leyen’s claim of impending human-parity AI was based on “the professional knowledge of Commission services, and desk review of scientific literature”.
As references, the EU’s executive pointed to several statements from professionals – including the prominent AI academic Yoshua Bengio and the CEOs of AI developers Anthropic and OpenAI, as well as the chief exec of AI chipmaker Nvidia.
“These are marketing statements driven by profit-motive and ideology rather than empirical evidence and formal proof,” the scientists write in the letter.
By repeating the AI industry’s marketing von der Leyen is undermining Europe’s credibility, they argue.
“The scientific development of any potentially useful AI is not served by amplifying the unscientific marketing claims of US tech firms,” the letter adds.
The two UN advisors among the signatories are Abeba Birhane and Virginia Dignum. Luc Steels, a prominent Belgian AI researcher, also put his name to the letter.
“We are not predicting human-level AI next year,” a Commission spokesperson told Euractiv in response to the scientists’ open letter, arguing that AI is developing faster and less predictably than older forecasts had suggested.
“This is about being prepared, not declaring a date,” they added. “Responsible planning is not guessing the future, it’s preparing for different scenarios.”
(nl)
UPDATE: Updated at 10:39 on 11 November to include comment from the Commission
Read the original article
Comments
This is comical because economies have become totally divorced from hard reality and markets are now vibes-based.
Nvidia, Tesla, and Palantir (trading at 450 P/E!) are, among others, essentially meme stocks. But, for better or worse, the US economy is riding that wave.
The way to revive a moribund economy isn't to insist that markets must be rational and that hype should be tamped down. This never works, and I think that the rational market myth is dead. (You could make the case that BTC was the final nail in its coffin.) Instead, you've gotta find a way to ride the wave -- but wisely, so that you don't stand to lose too much if/when it slows or hits the breakers.
By thw_9a83c 2025-11-1115:55 > ...that the rational market myth is dead.
Was there ever such myth? There is a quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946): "The markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
By raffael_de 2025-11-1116:312 reply I don't understand why Palantir is always thrown in with the AI bunch. Yes, they market products using AI. But their core business is products and consulting for surveillance. I'm bullish for Palantir because I'm bearish on freedom. All major democracies are turning into surveillance states. And von der Leyen is making sure EU does as well.
By A_D_E_P_T 2025-11-1117:00 Yo, they're trading at 450 P/E. Enough said, really. Whatever's going on, it's plainly detached from physical reality -- nothing they sell or provide can possibly justify their valuation.
By TiredOfLife 2025-11-1116:551 reply They are a boogeyman like Soros
By mvdtnz 2025-11-1117:34 It maybe it's because their value makes absolutely no sense.
By thunky 2025-11-1114:32 > Instead, you've gotta find a way to ride the wave -- but wisely, so that you don't stand to lose too much if/when it slows or hits the breakers.
Care to elaborate? Are you talking about stop losses? Options?
The former is a form of market timing and hard to get right. The latter is complicated.
Imo just buy the entire market at your appropriate risk tolerance level.
By shevy-java 2025-11-1113:025 reply Ursula is basically a lobbyist without much expertise in anything.
So she just parrots about how great xyz is, then she dishes out taxpayer's money to this or that group - typically corporations.
I think the whole EU should be reformed. We don't need lobbyists really.
I'm not a fan of her either, but what do you actually expect?
Politicians are not generally domain specialists anywhere, their purpose is to make decisions and serve as a pretty face for some more or less coherent policy.
Lobbyism is very easy to complain about and can easily devolve into corruption, but it has a very clear purpose: To prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected industries without gain. This is especially necessary at the EU level, because the main purpose of that whole organisation is to lower trade barriers and regulatory friction-- lobbyists are somewhat helpful and necessary in that.
> I think the whole EU should be reformed
What would you suggest?
By g-b-r 2025-11-1113:38 > Lobbyism is very easy to complain about and can easily devolve into corruption, but it has a very clear purpose: To prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected industries without gain.
Industries are not the only thing affected by policy, citizens are affected too.
Not harming industries often means harming normal people, and industries have a much stronger lobbying power than normal people,
Lobbying could be ok if every interaction with politicians were recorded and public, and if the money you have wouldn't matter on how easily you can reach the lawmakers.
If lobbying were illegal, lawmakers could inform their decisions by turning to independent experts, who provide some slightly more impartial information
> To prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected industries without gain.
Industries that cant comply to modern standards should be harmed. We dont need industries willing to pay lobbyists to keep fossil fuels alive for example.
> Industries that cant comply to modern standards should be harmed.
Those "modern standards" need to be codified into law, and feedback from established companies is valuable for doing that.
> We dont need industries willing to pay lobbyists to keep fossil fuels alive for example.
Those lobbyists represent the interests of a good portion of the economy. If you disregard their feedback, your risk damaging/destabilizing your economy for unclear gain, and the resulting backlash is going to more than undo any progress you made anyway.
> [...] feedback from established companies is valuable for doing that.
This is exactly what led us to fall behind in electric car development and construction.
It's the "unreasonable" rules that were unilaterally implemented that made car companies panic and finally start competing.
> Those lobbyists represent the interests of a good portion of the economy
No, they represent the interests of a few shareholders.
> It's the "unreasonable" rules that were unilaterally implemented that made car companies panic and finally start competing.
I believe the margin for effective regulation is much smaller than you think.
Sure, the EU could've mandated zero-emission vehicles from 2020 on in, say, 2010. But what would have happened? Carmakers would have made giant losses because their production facilities become worthless overnight (and laid off swathes of people); prices for vehicles and transport would've invariably gone through the roof and it is quite likely that the whole industry would have picked the "wrong" technology to bet on, like fuel cells, synthetic fuel or even hydrogen combustion.
Compare how much pushback you get in the general population against costly pro-climate policy already (very important to look past your own bubble on this!) and it seems clear to me that this would have failed competely (doing great economical damage, possibly a full-blown crisis), and would have probably been rolled back by the next election at the latest.
> Carmakers would have made giant losses because their production facilities become worthless overnight (and laid off swathes of people);
This is exactly what happened and is happening now. So 10 more years didn't prepare car maker better.
In fact the CEO of Stellantis was openly talking about how much of bad idea electric cars would be.
However, during those 10 years they managed to cheat on emissions measurements.
> it is quite likely that the whole industry would have picked the "wrong" technology to bet on, like fuel cells, synthetic fuel or even hydrogen combustion.
This also happened with so called bio-ethanol and Toyota's long standing and failed hydrogen bet.
> Compare how much pushback you get in the general population against costly pro-climate policy already
In Europe it's more a question of economics (like cost of electric cars for example) than a push back against pro-climate efforts themselves.
What is happening right now is that legacy carmakers have to compete harder because their core know-how lost value. That was somewhat inevitable, but banning/destroying that industry 10 years earlier would have hurt much more and would have been punished hard by voters.
> In Europe it's more a question of economics (like cost of electric cars for example) than a push back against pro-climate efforts themselves.
This is exactly my point- people don't like to suddenly pay more for the same just to avoid "climate debt" (and I'm willing to bet that your judgement on this is distorted, because most people in your bubble would accept some sacrifice for climate conservation, unlike the majority).
By zwnow 2025-11-127:01 I am afraid this is not a personal choice of "accepting" something. If they dont accept drastical change in their lifestyles, they gotta accept billions of immigrants given that some countries become inhabitable sooner than others. Given the current geopolitical climate I think they'd rather shoot them at the borders though. Sad world.
By sam_lowry_ 2025-11-1113:421 reply > What would you suggest?
Lenin once said that "Every cook should learn to govern the state."
And that's how we should do it. Random lottery, pretty much the same way we choose election assessors or jury members.
By glenneroo 2025-11-1213:20 This is how they do it on the Mars Trilogy after setting up a colony on Mars. Of course the trilogy is entirely fictional, but the idea sounds like it couldn't be worse than the current situation, where those with narcissistic/psycho/sociopath tendencies winning elections i.e. those who seek power and/or those who have proficient oration abilities, not necessarily those who are most capable.
By andrepd 2025-11-1113:19 The case of the EU Commissioner is particularly grating because she leads 500 million people without ever being subjected to an election.
By gizajob 2025-11-1113:42 Could start by not having an unelected president who thinks she’s the queen of the continent.
To prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected industries without gain
But where are the lobbyists that prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected citizens? Are they not entitled to adequate representation?
By myrmidon 2025-11-1114:14 > where are the lobbyists that prevent policymakers from writing regulations that harm the affected citizens
Voting is there to keep incentives aligned with the population at large.
On specific issues, lobbying is also feasible for non-corporate entities; consider right-to-repair initiatives or pro-climate NGOs.
By saubeidl 2025-11-1117:01 Unions and NGOs.
Lobbyists are how companies talk to governments. If you believe that companies create value, then you should believe that companies should communicate with governments. It can help prevent low quality regulations from being pushed through.
Of course what they say should be validated and taken with appropriate weight. Companies are usually blinkered; they know a lot about their specialist area but aren't incentivized to consider collective action problems or externalities. Something similar can be said for every political interest group. Governing effectively means balancing everyone's interests.
By CPLX 2025-11-1113:19 > If you believe that companies create value, then you should believe that companies should communicate with governments
Sorry, you're going to have to prove that.
Companies are made up of people, and it's completely reasonable to assume that if people were allowed to have a voice within government, then they could also speak on behalf of their own interests, which will often coincide with that of the companies that they're involved with.
There's no reason to consider companies a separate entity that has its own power to communicate and many reasons not to do that.
By slightwinder 2025-11-1113:182 reply > Ursula is basically a lobbyist without much expertise in anything.
She doesn't need to have any expertise, nobody can have deep expertise on everything. It's basically a politician job to have no clue and find reliable sources for an educated decision. And this usually fails hard on bleeding edge topics, because not many have an educated opinion at that point.
But as a side note, she did study something medical, so she does have some deeper expertise outside the political area.
> I think the whole EU should be reformed.
No reform can fix this problem. And always calling for reforms because of some detail not working how you want it is harmful.
"I think the whole EU should be reformed" reads exactly like a junior dev demanding a full rewrite from scratch.
By sam_lowry_ 2025-11-1114:011 reply Sometimes you have to rewrite from scratch when the original is broken beyond repair and institutional knowledge is lost.
A young dev may have an easier time seeing this.
By octopoc 2025-11-1114:55 Devs should not recommend rewrites until they have a workable plan on how to move forward without a rewrite, so they can compare the costs of rewrite vs. no rewrite.
By sam_lowry_ 2025-11-1113:481 reply > She doesn't need to have any expertise
By living in a bubble, she became less knowledgeable on common matters than an average citizen, and this even extends to her cabinet.
The proof at hand is the story of her "GPS-jammed" landing in Plovdiv.
She lied, her press secretary lied and there was none around to tell them about ADS-B, FlightRadar24 and how these lies can be trivially verified.
By slightwinder 2025-11-1114:001 reply > By living in a bubble, she became less knowledgeable on common matters that an average citizen
I would trust an average citizen in those matters even less. We are not talking here about the daily egg-prices or which is the hottest celebrity at the moment. That woman is the leader of the executive branch of a Pan-National Organization. This is by definition a job with problems, which are very far away from the daily dread of the average citizen.
> The proof at hand is the story of her landing in Plovdiv.
What are you talking about? Pretty sure she is not flying here own plane, nor making the technical decision when it lands. Whatever happened there, has no relation to whichever abilities she might have or is lacking.
By sam_lowry_ 2025-11-1114:15 > What are you talking about?
Sorry for not being specific enough. I am talking about the "GPS jamming" of the plane that she flew to Plovdiv 31 August 2025.
Here are the fake news by Ursula von der Leyen press secretary at the morning briefing next day: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-276341
Here FlightRadar24 publishing the facts: https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1962565122326700178
Here is the parliamentary question that asks why EU Commission was spreading fake news: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/O-10-2025-0000...
The majority of HN readers would have immediately understood that such lies can be easily disproved.
That there was none around Ursula von der Leyen nor her press secretary to warn them about this is really worrying me.
Not only these ladies are clueless... the whole cabinet is probably as clueless as they are.
If you take time and watch that press conference, you'll notice something even more alarming. Podesta, the press secretary, uses the words front and frontline quite a lot and give the impression that they are already at war.
The EU comes with a whole range of flaws, that's true, but as far as I'm concerned it's still the best place to live in the world as far as personal freedom, quality of life, etc, go. Fixing the bad bits is important, yes, but you gotta be careful not to break too many of the good bits while you're doing it.
By Lapel2742 2025-11-1113:37 Couldn't agree more. As a European: Yes, there's a lot (and I mean A LOT!) of things that could be improved but for all that is bad, it could be much worse. Especially when you look around. There are only few countries I would permanently move to. Nearly all of them are European.
By zwnow 2025-11-1113:17 She's also 67 by now, which is the regular retirement age in Germany. Can we just get rid of all the old people in positions of power... ?
It's happening over and over again that old people decide on things that mess up the younger generations.
The dilemma of leaders way behind is to find the right attack vector. Of course, you won't be able to become competitive by just "put more effort" into the existing stuff and hence everyone is eager to hope for a "Wunderwaffe" like flying taxis, quantum computing, blockchain, AI moonshots or whatever. In the end they all fail because the existing issues and problems won't be fixed, leading to the next failure. This happens over and over again, but voters still believe the promises of politicians.
Worse, there is a whole European industry sector hunting for subsidies doing build-to-fail projects, for example "google competitor", "European cloud" etc.
This competition is the solution, not the problem. Europe is what's left of western society after the US have completely lost it. My humble opinions, ofc.
I can agree in some ways but the issue remains (as an European) that our collective economies don't really grow anymore.
So there might be more competition, but it's either marginal, or it's to weak to compete with other international companies (like the once in China for example).
Why do they need to grow? Unlimited growth is normally classified as cancer. The only real need for growth is because of unsustainable economic practice.
By LunaSea 2025-11-1120:05 > The only real need for growth is because of unsustainable economic practice.
Our whole retirement social system is based on growth.
By bryanlarsen 2025-11-1113:431 reply Europe has been "stagnating" at about ~80% of American productivity levels for decades now. However, if your reference is growing and your ratio is roughly constant, that means you are growing too.
By LunaSea 2025-11-1113:50 I don't mean compared to the US but in absolute GDP numbers.
States are more in more in debt and what was once a great social system in most EU countries is slowly moving to privatisation and higher costs like the US.
By sam_lowry_ 2025-11-1113:361 reply Most of the time one can't compete by mimicking. We lost on European cloud but European hosting has never been as strong.
By rmoriz 2025-11-121:52 We’ve seen a massive consolidation in hosting, domain, collocation and even B2B access providers in Germany. Some were sold to US companies, others are purchased and now owned by private equity companies. They are now centralized and based of existing revenue streams. Managed services are getting consolidated to reduce infra overhead but no new intellectual property or regionally optimized/local services are provided.
