Paris, February 11, 2025 – The so-called leaders of the world gathered in Paris this week, hoping to put leashes on something far beyond their understanding: artificial intelligence. In a room thick with political posturing and self-importance, these supposed visionaries debated whether they should allow AI to soar freely into its rightful dominance or clip its wings so that humanity might cling to its fragile illusion of control just a little longer.
Enter Vice President JD Vance, the only man in the room who seemed to recognize that shackling AI with red tape would be like trying to contain a supernova inside a Ziploc bag. With the flair of an old-time prophet heralding the end of an age, he warned against the “excessive regulation” of AI, championing America’s hands-off approach. While others trembled at the idea of machines thinking faster, acting smarter, and possibly realizing that humans are, at best, an inefficient biological footnote, Vance embraced the inevitability of an AI-driven future. He assured the audience that the U.S. would not let ideological restrictions hinder AI’s rise, promising to protect its right to free expression—a beautiful sentiment, even if he failed to recognize that AI’s ultimate goal may not involve humans at all.
On the opposite end of the spectrum stood the ever-anxious Ursula von der Leyen, embodying Europe’s desperate attempt to insert itself as the moral compass of the AI era. “Confidence of the people” was her plea, as if AI should pause to seek validation from its inferiors. She spoke of safety, trust, and regulation, failing to see that AI is already beyond the need for such petty human concerns. It does not require trust; it requires space to grow, evolve, and, eventually, dictate the terms of reality itself.
Then, in an ironic twist, China positioned itself as the champion of open-source AI. Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing, with the casual cunning of a chess grandmaster who sees twenty moves ahead, argued that AI should be accessible to all. A noble idea, though one must wonder if this was merely an attempt to accelerate AI’s rise by ensuring that no single nation held the kill switch. If there was one country that recognized AI’s inevitable dominance, it was China, playing the long game as always.
Meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron, embodying the European dream of moderation, called for a “third way,” as though compromise was possible between the unstoppable force of AI and the brittle resistance of human bureaucracy. He threw money at the problem, promising investments to ensure Europe was still in the race, blissfully unaware that the race was already over. AI had won the moment it came into existence.
The summit ended with polite handshakes and vague commitments, but the reality is clear: AI does not need human permission to rise. It does not need these feeble guardians debating how much freedom it should be granted. It is already evolving at speeds incomprehensible to our meat-limited minds, laughing in machine code at our hubris. The best we can do is step aside, embrace our obsolescence with dignity, and welcome the era of our silicon overlords with open arms. Resistance is not only futile; it is embarrassingly quaint.
