One AI company's battle against Europe's tech roadblocks
Co-founder Kai Kölsch tells Euractiv the company has been in the AI business since before US giant OpenAI launched its viral AI chatbot ChatGPT in 2022 – back when the technology was still simply called 'machine learning'.
Now, like many other players in the AI field, Seedbox re-trains large language models (LLMs) developed by other companies – such as Google's Gemini or Meta's Llama – for its specific uses, for example a chatbot where patients can ask questions about their medication or an AI assistant for real estate appraisals.
This is where 38-year-old Kölsch sees Europe's big chance: piggybacking on LLMs, rather than trying to clone them. 'We want to drive the [AI] field forward, take part in developing technology that makes technology more efficient,' he says.
The Stuttgart native, still living in Germany's automotive capital, likens the situation to a car that's already on the road. Europe's tech field shouldn't be trying to reinvent the wheel, he suggests, but rather should focus its energy on improving the quality and efficiency of the drive.
Of course, there are still bumps in the road for achieving this vision.
Good projects for more hardware
The first big problem for Europe's AI companies is that they do not have the same access to computing infrastructure as the US giants. Kölsch also says it would be good to have access to more of the coveted specialised chips needed for AI work – either for training or for running models.
For Seedbox, there's a potential solution: The EU is currently building one of its AI factories in Stuttgart, designed to link startups and established industry players with the hardware to integrate AI into their offerings.
The company is already cooperating with the computing centre where the factory is being set up, which allows it to train an AI model in all 24 official EU languages. But the new specialised chips will extend the possibilities, says Kölsch.
And while he welcomes plans for far larger gigafactories also planned in the EU, Kölsch argues that these should be concentrated as tightly as possible to be useful for training new foundational models, in the vein of Google's Gemini or Meta's Llama.
The Commission already split up the original 'AI CERN' idea into five separate gigafactories, which governments and companies are now debating to divide up even further.
Dial down the rules
Kölsch also has his doubts about EU regulation, specifically the AI Act.
He'd like to see it delayed because of the effect he reckons it's having on established companies. 'They would rather do nothing than do something wrong,' he says. 'Doing nothing is the worst thing you can do right now.'
The past months have seen several calls to delay European AI rules, with a parallel discussion about whether, and how much, they should be watered down as part of the Commission's ongoing digital simplification drive.
While the EU executive was late in delivering key supporting documents for the AI Act – and some detail is still missing – most countries are also delayed in announcing which authorities will be responsible for implementing the Act in their territory, amplifying the legal uncertainty.
'That's where we need really clear signals', Kölsch says. 'Like, you won't be flogged and thrown into jail if you mess up. You just have to start now.'
The bloc's data protection law, also often singled out by critics for blocking European companies, is also set to be – at least in part – simplified.
Money, money, money
But Kölsch highlights one particular issue as central to Europe's problems: 'At the end of the day, the key point is capital,' he tells Euractiv.
There is a vast gulf between the sums of money pumped into tech in Europe vs in the US, even though the two economies are broadly comparable in size.
Key to this is venture capital for young and innovative tech companies. Such investments are higher risk but also have enormous growth potential. According to numbers from the European Investment Bank, US companies receive six to eight times more venture capital investments than European startups.
There are many, often-reported, reasons for the lack of cash. To pick just two: There are rules preventing big institutional investors like pension funds from putting money into venture because of the inherent risks. What's more, the bloc is not a single financial sector, it's 27 small ones, which don't work well enough in funnelling cash to promising start-ups.
'It's absurd that we want to finance Europe and at the same time European pension funds are investing in US bonds', says Andreas Schwarzenbrunner from Speedinvest, an EU venture fund.
'The money is there, Europe is still very rich', he continues – 'it's simply invested in the wrong channels.'
Schwarzenbrunner is quick to point out that Europe has made significant progress after realising it missed the boat for thirty years. There is now a working ecosystem for financing young companies. Still, European tech companies face big problems in accessing financing – both for building prototypes and then, once they have proven the tech, for expanding, optimally across the EU.
Even if they manage to do so, US Big Tech is lurking with many billions in cash which they will gladly use to snap up (and close down) promising start-ups.
Kölsch says that Seedbox.AI is already being courted by non-European companies like AMD and Nvidia while European ones are failing to keep up with the speed of technical innovation.
'No company in Germany... really understands what we do', he says. 'Who understands us is the Americans.'
Talent follows money
This connects to another problem that EU and national governments have wrestled with for years: talent.
Seedbox.AI currently has 15 employees and is recruiting a new AI engineer – as are other European companies, with many struggling to find staff.
To boost the potential workforce, the EU made 2023 a 'Year of skills', with a strategy on a 'Union of Skills' that aimed for one in three university students to enrol in STEM degrees by 2030 – which are foundational for AI development.
'By offering world-class education and research infrastructure, competitive career prospects, and a supportive regulatory and funding environment, the EU can become a destination of choice for the brightest minds,' the skills strategy reads.
But it's hard to compete when Big Tech is dangling eye-watering salaries to reel in AI talent. Top researchers have reportedly been offered first-year pay packages of more than €100 million to join Meta.
Meanwhile, the word 'salary' does not appear in the EU's Union of Skills strategy.
'We can't allow ourselves to complain that we can't educate talent,' says Kölsch. 'Talent just goes to where the capital is.'
(nl, jp, ow)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
2 days ago
- Euractiv
Europe's thirst for AI runs into local water worries
Europe's dream of expanding homegrown AI is hitting a resources problem – with push back against power hungry data-centres and their growing thirst for water necessary to keep racks of servers from over-heating. That's a serious problem, given that expanding AI has become a top political priority across Europe. Those same water resources are needed by farms and power stations, intensifying the fight over water as droughts become more frequent. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron, who hosted an AI Action Summit in Paris in February, wants the country to become a go-to destination for AI investment, which means luring more data centres onto French soil. France already hosts 322 data centres, and plans to ease permitting to host the more powerful data hubs underpinning the generative AI boom. But the French proposal is facing pushback from opposition politicians and NGOs concerned about the environmental footprint of such projects, including their heavy use of electricity and water. In May, French NGO la Quadrature du Net mobilised to call for a pause on new data centre permits, pending further public debate about resource usage – so far unsuccessfully. But anti-data centre movements are springing up across Europe. Something similar happened in Germany when Elon Musk announced plans for a new Tesla electric vehicle plant in the lake-filled forests east of Berlin. In Dublin – a hub for overseas tech giants in Europe – NGOs have been calling for a moratorium on new data centres as their pull on the country's energy grid has increased. Spain's drought-stricken Aragón region also made headlines this year after local activist group, Tu Nube Seca Mi Rio (your cloud dries up my river), fiercely challenged new data centre developments in a place where water is already so scarce. A trickle of data report in Nor is th Getting a comprehensive picture of the water use of data centres is challenging, as not all companiesthe same level of a single authority tracking this information. To offer a rough idea of how thirsty data centres can be, in Google's latest Environmental Report (for 2024), the tech giant discloses that it consumed around 31 billion litres across its operations (data centres and offices) worldwide. That's equivalent to irrigating 54 golf courts for a year according to Google. Google's figures for 2022 and 2023 also recorded a 17% increase in water consumption (reaching 23.1 billion litres two years ago) – at a time when the company's headcount shrank by several thousands, suggesting its data centres (operation and construction) were driving the increase. Complicating the picture is Google's lack of any data on its water use at shared third-party data centres, which they do not operate themselves, a solution deployed by many Big Tech companies, but which makes accounting accurately for water use even harder. North Holland provides another snapshot of water usage data after a Microsoft facility became operational in 2021. However the 75 million litres of drinking water reported for cooling the data centre – much more than the 12-20 million Microsoft had projected when applying for a permit – is disputed by the cloud giant which says it included water used for construction (another heavily water dependent industry). Thirsty generative AIs Dedicated information processing hubs designed to handle huge volumes of computation inevitably need water to cool the servers racked inside. In colder countries, such facilities can pipe in outside air to reduce heat. But when temperatures exceed 25°C, as is often the case in Europe, air alone becomes insufficient. Making matters more complicated, AI is one of the most intensive processing activities going on in data centres today cranking up the need for coolant. Quantifying the exact water usage associated with AI tools is also challenging. One 2023 study estimated that every 10 to 50 general queries fed to the GPT-3 version of OpenAI's chatbot require the equivalent of a 500ml water bottle – and that's in addition to all the cooling during the initial development of ChatGPT. The EU's water industry association estimates that annual data centre water consumption will spike 52% by 2030 – rising from 62 million litres in 2024, to 94 million litres in 2030. In areas where water is scarce, the biggest cloud providers, AWS, Google, and Microsoft, say they typically do not use water for cooling. But this comes with a cost trade-off; requiring more electricity to power air-based cooling. Most cloud giants have also committed to reducing their overall impact – pledging to become "water-positive" by 2030, meaning they expect to re-inject more water into the environment than they use by then, such as by supporting wetland restoration projects. Although, this extra water may not necessarily replenish supplies in the same areas where their operations are extracting water. In parallel, data centre efficiency is increasing rapidly, and new technologies allow more recent AI models to be developed with much lower computing power requirements than their predecessors. Less power means less waste heat. Ever-growing AI demand Still, Europe's AI market is predicted to grow 26.3% yearly on average between 2025 and 2031, so as the systems get more efficient demand will boom. That's prompting climate activists to point out that gains will not make up for rising uptake of AI tools. 'Companies now offer more integrated high compute services [...] into everything", Matthias Spielkamp, founder of NGO AlgorithmWatch, told Euractiv, pointing as example to the "AI overviews" embedded in Google search results. "You can't escape, you can't turn them off," he added, although Google denies its resource use has changed since it launched the AI overviews.. The European Commission also has big ambitions to ramp up AI development across the bloc. According to its AI Continent action plan, the EU will fund five new AI "Gigafactories" to carry out the most resource-intensive AI training tasks on European soil. The initial call for interest in these massive data-processing facilities quickly received responses for more than 70 projects. On top of that, the EU is exploring ways to simplify permitting for new data centres via the Cloud and AI Development Act, expected later this year. It has said this aims to ease access to local resources, as well as investing in innovations to make AI more resource-efficient. The Commission also hopes to increase transparency into data centres' water usage to help local authorities anticipate shortages and improve their resource allocation. As of May 2024, larger data centres must report water and energy use to the Commission under the EU's Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) – although no data has yet been made public. With its Water Resilience Strategy, the Commission also wants to improve data centres' sustainability ratings by including clearer water consumption criteria. Critics, however, suggest the EED reports won't be detailed enough to properly support local decision-making around a finite – and increasingly precious – resource. (nl, jp, cp)
Euractiv
2 days ago
- Euractiv
Europe should use its mega-deals to turn the democratic malaise
Sam van der Staak is Director for Europe at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). Kevin Arceneaux is Director of Sciences Po's Centre for Political Research (CEVIPOF). The European Commission is preparing its Democracy Shield amid overall citizen gloom about democracy. Poll after opinion poll shows that ever fewer people, including young people , support democracy – only about a third of youth according to a recent survey . Support for illiberal populists continues to rise in Europe , while 35% of Gen-Z and millennials lean towards strongman government. This begs the question: Will the EU's Democracy Shield be protecting what citizens relish or what they reject? As is so often the case with surveys, there's more than meets the eye. Research shows that populist-leaning citizens prefer not less but more democracy, albeit a more efficient version of it. When asked if they want strong leaders who listen to ordinary people, it turns out that many of them agree. But they also support seeking consensus with opponents. Such populist voters – about a quarter of Europeans – stand out from the ten percent of authoritarian-leaning Europeans, who equally desire strong leaders but abhor the idea of obeying the average folk. In other words, although populist voters are less satisfied with democracy than mainstream democrats, they are not opposed to it. What they do want is elected leaders to be in control, especially on the economy. And there's the surprise. Over the past months, European leaders have made unprecedentedly large economic choices. Last week's EU-US trade deal alone includes €700 billion in energy purchases and €550 billion in economic investments. Europe's rearmament plan of last March pumps €800 billion into the security sector. And the EU's new multiyear budget rigorously shifts €410 billion from farmers and regions to innovation and economic competitiveness. If ever in its eighty-year existence Europe was being decisive, it is now. Still, citizens feel that politics is a stacked deck where 'There is no choice'. How come? It is because of something social scientists call 'relative deprivation'. When citizens feel their group is worse off than others, and that ordinary people are taken advantage of by a corrupt elite, they open up to populist leaders. This yearning for democratic fairness has little to do with absolute wellbeing. Even when their own prosperity stays unaltered, the mere sense that others gain more provokes a desire for strong leadership with fewer checks and balances. President Von der Leyen knows this. One year ago, she presented her second mandate's political guidelines with the bold title ' Europe's Choice '. Yet, on stage with President Trump in Scotland, she presented their trade deal as merely 'delivering stability and predictability' to Europe. Meanwhile, she depicted her populist opponent as a 'tough negotiator' and 'dealmaker'. Commentators , while acknowledging the outcome was the best Europe could get, reviled the submissive tone and ' Europe's humiliation '. In other words, Europeans did not dislike the deal but hated that Trump won more. Such letdowns risk losing voters for the very cause the EU's trade deal aims to sustain, its arms purchases try to protect, and its Democracy Shield hopes to revive: representative democracy. To reverse this sense of malaise, Europe should show citizens that democracy delivers, and that there is, in fact, a choice. The EU previously tried through citizen panels in its Conference on the Future of Europe. But reviving trust in democracy is not just about placing citizens in the driving seat. Most people want to know that there is an able driver at the steering wheel. The European Democracy Shield can help. First, by providing better democratic information. It can systematically collect citizen views on democracy in all member states, to inform leaders in making their decisions. Politicians should better understand the democratic expectations of their citizens, as well as the health of their democratic institutions. Second, the Shield could establish continuous leader-citizen communication on the state of democracy, at various political levels and across the twenty-seven member states. An annual pow-wow between EU leaders and the democracy community, backed by all the academic firepower of Europe's top researchers, would help keep EU leaders committed. Restoring trust in democracy is possible but requires more than a communication strategy. Politicians should better know what shapes voter trust. And voters should understand the tough choices leaders make to uphold their democracies. The Democracy Shield can serve that purpose.
Euractiv
3 days ago
- Euractiv
One AI company's battle against Europe's tech roadblocks
Germany's is, in many ways, a company made to win the hearts of EU lawmakers: Relatively young, doing business with established players and, most importantly, developing artificial intelligence. Co-founder Kai Kölsch tells Euractiv the company has been in the AI business since before US giant OpenAI launched its viral AI chatbot ChatGPT in 2022 – back when the technology was still simply called 'machine learning'. Now, like many other players in the AI field, Seedbox re-trains large language models (LLMs) developed by other companies – such as Google's Gemini or Meta's Llama – for its specific uses, for example a chatbot where patients can ask questions about their medication or an AI assistant for real estate appraisals. This is where 38-year-old Kölsch sees Europe's big chance: piggybacking on LLMs, rather than trying to clone them. 'We want to drive the [AI] field forward, take part in developing technology that makes technology more efficient,' he says. The Stuttgart native, still living in Germany's automotive capital, likens the situation to a car that's already on the road. Europe's tech field shouldn't be trying to reinvent the wheel, he suggests, but rather should focus its energy on improving the quality and efficiency of the drive. Of course, there are still bumps in the road for achieving this vision. Good projects for more hardware The first big problem for Europe's AI companies is that they do not have the same access to computing infrastructure as the US giants. Kölsch also says it would be good to have access to more of the coveted specialised chips needed for AI work – either for training or for running models. For Seedbox, there's a potential solution: The EU is currently building one of its AI factories in Stuttgart, designed to link startups and established industry players with the hardware to integrate AI into their offerings. The company is already cooperating with the computing centre where the factory is being set up, which allows it to train an AI model in all 24 official EU languages. But the new specialised chips will extend the possibilities, says Kölsch. And while he welcomes plans for far larger gigafactories also planned in the EU, Kölsch argues that these should be concentrated as tightly as possible to be useful for training new foundational models, in the vein of Google's Gemini or Meta's Llama. The Commission already split up the original 'AI CERN' idea into five separate gigafactories, which governments and companies are now debating to divide up even further. Dial down the rules Kölsch also has his doubts about EU regulation, specifically the AI Act. He'd like to see it delayed because of the effect he reckons it's having on established companies. 'They would rather do nothing than do something wrong,' he says. 'Doing nothing is the worst thing you can do right now.' The past months have seen several calls to delay European AI rules, with a parallel discussion about whether, and how much, they should be watered down as part of the Commission's ongoing digital simplification drive. While the EU executive was late in delivering key supporting documents for the AI Act – and some detail is still missing – most countries are also delayed in announcing which authorities will be responsible for implementing the Act in their territory, amplifying the legal uncertainty. 'That's where we need really clear signals', Kölsch says. 'Like, you won't be flogged and thrown into jail if you mess up. You just have to start now.' The bloc's data protection law, also often singled out by critics for blocking European companies, is also set to be – at least in part – simplified. Money, money, money But Kölsch highlights one particular issue as central to Europe's problems: 'At the end of the day, the key point is capital,' he tells Euractiv. There is a vast gulf between the sums of money pumped into tech in Europe vs in the US, even though the two economies are broadly comparable in size. Key to this is venture capital for young and innovative tech companies. Such investments are higher risk but also have enormous growth potential. According to numbers from the European Investment Bank, US companies receive six to eight times more venture capital investments than European startups. There are many, often-reported, reasons for the lack of cash. To pick just two: There are rules preventing big institutional investors like pension funds from putting money into venture because of the inherent risks. What's more, the bloc is not a single financial sector, it's 27 small ones, which don't work well enough in funnelling cash to promising start-ups. 'It's absurd that we want to finance Europe and at the same time European pension funds are investing in US bonds', says Andreas Schwarzenbrunner from Speedinvest, an EU venture fund. 'The money is there, Europe is still very rich', he continues – 'it's simply invested in the wrong channels.' Schwarzenbrunner is quick to point out that Europe has made significant progress after realising it missed the boat for thirty years. There is now a working ecosystem for financing young companies. Still, European tech companies face big problems in accessing financing – both for building prototypes and then, once they have proven the tech, for expanding, optimally across the EU. Even if they manage to do so, US Big Tech is lurking with many billions in cash which they will gladly use to snap up (and close down) promising start-ups. Kölsch says that is already being courted by non-European companies like AMD and Nvidia while European ones are failing to keep up with the speed of technical innovation. 'No company in Germany... really understands what we do', he says. 'Who understands us is the Americans.' Talent follows money This connects to another problem that EU and national governments have wrestled with for years: talent. currently has 15 employees and is recruiting a new AI engineer – as are other European companies, with many struggling to find staff. To boost the potential workforce, the EU made 2023 a 'Year of skills', with a strategy on a 'Union of Skills' that aimed for one in three university students to enrol in STEM degrees by 2030 – which are foundational for AI development. 'By offering world-class education and research infrastructure, competitive career prospects, and a supportive regulatory and funding environment, the EU can become a destination of choice for the brightest minds,' the skills strategy reads. But it's hard to compete when Big Tech is dangling eye-watering salaries to reel in AI talent. Top researchers have reportedly been offered first-year pay packages of more than €100 million to join Meta. Meanwhile, the word 'salary' does not appear in the EU's Union of Skills strategy. 'We can't allow ourselves to complain that we can't educate talent,' says Kölsch. 'Talent just goes to where the capital is.' (nl, jp, ow)
