The public is in all but name a shareholder of AI companies, and yet is promised little in return to justify subsidies given on their behalf. In our new working paper, “Optimising for happiness in EU technology policy to repay public subsidies for AI,” we set out a plan for this to change.

Backlash against the AI industry is growing globally. In Europe, plans are afoot to lower ‘barriers to innovation’ for the sake of AI. The Digital Omnibus, among other political initiatives, is set to weaken regulatory restrictions on the technology at the cost of fundamental rights and environmental protections, and pave the way for further roll out of general-purpose AI products and services, as well as data centres to power them.

Today’s AI industry can learn from a classic Greek myth: the tale of Perseus and Medusa. Perseus, son of divine parentage, is said to be a strong and fearless hero who journeys to slay Medusa, a seemingly invincible monster whose mere gaze can turn living beings into stone.

Yet Perseus did not work alone—he received a cap of invisibility from Hades, winged shoes from Hermes, a sword from Hephaestus, and a shield, enchanted bag, and strategic council from Athena. Perseus could not have slain Medusa by himself, and yet he is hailed as a self-made hero.

Today, similar myths are crafted about AI companies and their founders. These self-invented ‘heroes’ are said to make the impossible, possible. However, just like Perseus, they rely on outside help in the form of substantial assistance from the state and public.

As the current deregulatory trend shows, the public pays for AI through substantial (in)direct subsidies including tax breaks, direct public funding, privileged access to public lands, water, electricity, data, and infrastructure, deregulation of data protection, labour, environmental and intellectual property laws. This help is often given without consulting the public, who ultimately pays for it.

But what does the public receive in return beyond access to a technology of dubious value? AI systems pose severe and uncertain risks for society, and yet are sold predominantly on the basis that they enable economic growth and competitiveness, with little attention given to social or non-financial benefits. Economic growth is no guarantee of economic equality, and yet many of the risks and costs of AI are socialised.

Policymakers have a mandate to protect the common good. Striking a fair balance between individual rights and EU values on the one hand, and innovation and free market competition on the other, especially in the face of such extreme market hype and (global) deregulatory pressures, is a seemingly impossible task.

In our paper “Optimising for happiness in EU technology policy to repay public subsidies for AI” we argue that a change of priorities is urgently needed in EU tech policy. We show how current policy predominantly focuses on risk mitigation rather than delivering socially beneficial tech. The public is in all but name a shareholder of AI companies, and yet is promised little in return to justify the subsidies given on their behalf.

To correct this imbalance, we propose adding a third pillar to EU AI policymaking: happiness.

When policymakers are deciding whether subsidies should be granted or extended for the AI industry, we argue they should require companies to predict measurable benefits for public happiness, and hold them accountable for delivering on them.

To unpack this proposal, we examine decades of research in psychology to identify key determinants of happiness, focusing on three widely accepted traits: relatedness, competence, and autonomy.

Relatedness concerns the social nature of human beings, who have evolved such that they are fundamentally motivated to form and maintain lasting interpersonal bonds with humans and connections with nature.

People are not only social by nature; they are also doers, builders, and thinkers. Competence is about acting effectively, meeting challenges, and bringing about meaningful and desired outcomes.

Autonomy exists when actions are endorsed from within, and carried out with the feeling that “this is really coming from me” rather than being imposed by external forces.

These antecedents of happiness are increasingly at risk from the rollout and subsidisation of AI.

Chatbots that are designed to mimic human emotion and empathy enable parasocial relationships, but reduce opportunities for real human relatedness. The massive rollout of data centres likewise threatens public land and water and peoples’ access to it, and contributes to climate change.

Competence is threatened by deskilling from using generative AI. Recent deployments of generative AI across universities and schools may undermine student’s educational skills, for example.

Autonomy is threatened by LLMs and chatbots designed to be sycophantic to keep users engaged and online, as well as other novel forms of persuasion such as advertising.

In the face of these risks, and against the backdrop of the substantial subsidies the public already pays to the AI industry, policymakers across Europe should start to prioritise people’s happiness.

Being happy is a goal in itself, but happy people are also good for society. Happiness allows people to learn, work, create, care, and participate well in families, schools, workplaces, and communities. Happiness is a driver of many of the outcomes that governments, legislators, and industry leaders already value.

Our proposal is an attempt to rebalance the focus of regulators from predominantly economic considerations towards a more holistic idea of societal progress in the age of frontier AI. Policymakers should ensure that public support goes to innovation that improves human happiness and well-being.

Making technology less harmful does not mean it is socially beneficial. The AI industry must aim higher or risk losing their ‘divine’ benefactors. AI policy must be re-balanced to compel them to deliver AI technologies that enhance human well-being and fundamental and individual rights, rather than merely eroding them less than projected.