With the \u201cHacktivate AI\u201d<\/strong> report, OpenAI<\/strong> and Allied for Startups<\/strong> have presented a policy paper designed to make Europe a leader in AI adoption. In twenty proposals, they outline how to simplify regulations, cut bureaucracy, and integrate AI into businesses and governments across the continent. At first glance, this sounds like progress \u2014 but beneath the appealing rhetoric lies a clear agenda: the advancement of corporate and technological interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report calls for \u201cRelentless Harmonisation,\u201d transitional grace periods, special AI zones, tax incentives, and streamlined compliance \u2014 all measures aimed at speeding up AI deployment. The goal: remove barriers, open markets, stimulate development. Yet what is missing is any real discussion of the social and political consequences<\/strong>. There is no plan for how AI adoption will be monitored, measured, or limited. No framework for social compensation, no binding ethical guidelines. It\u2019s about speed \u2014 not accountability. And that is precisely where the AI Fair Use approach<\/strong> draws the line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Advocating mass deployment of AI without addressing its impact on employment, democracy, and social stability is reckless. The metaphor is obvious: OpenAI and its partners are effectively proposing to arm society with tools they neither fully understand nor control \u2014 and then let everyone start shooting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The AI Fair Use approach<\/strong> argues the opposite: verification must come before deployment.<\/strong> Before AI is rolled out at scale, there must be auditable control mechanisms<\/strong> \u2014 technical, legal, and ethical. Before companies receive certificates or funding, they must prove<\/strong> that their systems enhance human work, not replace it. And before policymakers issue blanket exemptions, there must be institutional counterweights<\/strong> \u2014 independent audits, transparent disclosure, and public oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Europe has the opportunity to forge its own path \u2014 neither the American model focused solely on market expansion, nor the Chinese model centered on state surveillance. A European approach must be built on democratic values, social responsibility, and long-term resilience<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The OpenAI report, however, largely ignores these principles. Its proposed incentives \u2014 \u201cAI Vouchers,\u201d \u201cGrace Periods,\u201d and \u201cAI Zones\u201d \u2014 are rooted in market logic but socially unbalanced<\/strong>. They lower barriers for technology deployment but simultaneously erode the safeguards that prevent misuse and overreach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When companies deploy AI to cut costs, eliminate jobs, or replace human judgment, that is not innovation \u2014 it is structural labor displacement<\/strong> wrapped in technological rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The AI Fair Use Index<\/strong> takes a fundamentally different approach: it does not rate companies by the speed of their innovation, but by the balance between technological automation and human contribution<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The goal is not to slow AI down \u2014 but to make its deployment measurable and accountable<\/strong>. Only organizations that disclose the extent of human involvement in their processes, decisions, and production can credibly claim to use AI responsibly. Transparency, verifiability, and social impact must be part of the same equation as efficiency and scale. That is how a true culture of accountability<\/strong> emerges \u2014 not a culture of uncritical enthusiasm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While OpenAI frames its proposals as pragmatic policy, they are, in many respects, corporate lobbying<\/strong>. They primarily benefit those who already possess capital, data, and computational infrastructure. Small and medium-sized enterprises, municipalities, and civic organizations are not empowered by this agenda \u2014 they are positioned as users, not participants<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Especially troubling is the recurring call for a \u201cGrace Period\u201d until 2030 \u2014 a window during which companies could deploy AI without meeting full regulatory requirements. This might sound like innovation policy, but in practice, it represents a temporary deregulation phase<\/strong> where errors and harms could spread unchecked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regulation is not the enemy of innovation \u2014 it is its precondition<\/strong>. Only where safety, liability, and transparency exist can sustainable trust<\/strong> be built.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A responsible European path to AI adoption must rest on a different foundation. It should be guided by principles such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cHacktivate AI\u201d report embodies a worldview where efficiency outranks ethics, acceleration outweighs control, and growth eclipses dignity. The AI Fair Use approach<\/strong> reverses that logic: it puts the human being back at the center. Technology should serve humanity \u2014 not displace it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Europe truly wants a sustainable AI policy, it does not need another industry playbook. It needs a new culture of regulation<\/strong> \u2014 one that makes progress measurable, responsibility mandatory, and fairness verifiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\nA Manifesto for Acceleration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
From Arming to Auditing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Technology Is Not an End in Itself<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Fair Use Instead of Free Fire<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Unrealism of the Tech Agenda<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A European Alternative<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Conclusion: To Want AI Is to Want Responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n