After its breakout debut in 2025, HumanX quickly established itself as one of the industry’s premier gatherings. Following a successful expansion to San Francisco this year (HumanX doubled in size), the conference is now making its European debut in Amsterdam in September, reflecting the region’s growing influence on the future of AI innovation, enterprise adoption, and policy.
Ahead of the event, we sat down with HumanX co-founder and CEO Stefan Weitz to explore the differences between EU and U.S. AI policy, and how the tighter regulations the EU implements can still affect U.S. business strategy from across the pond. Stefan also gave us a preview of what the team is bringing to the show in Amsterdam, who the attendees leading the policy conversation are, and what to expect from their first European appearance.
A Q&A with HumanX co-founder and CEO Stefan Weitz
Was there a particular moment or signal that convinced you there was demand for a HumanX event in Europe? What made Amsterdam the right choice for your first European event?
This year at HumanX in San Francisco, we welcomed attendees from 79 countries, with especially strong participation from Europe. That wasn’t surprising – Europe is one of the largest economic blocs on the planet. It’s home to accelerating AI innovation and a complex regulatory landscape shaped by both individual nation-states and the EU, significantly more complex than what many US companies must deal with. The fact that so many people traveled to San Francisco to spend four days with us was a strong signal that we should be bringing HumanX to Europe as well.
Just as importantly, many AI purchasing decisions for multinational companies are increasingly made at the European headquarters level. While organizations may establish global AI strategies, regional teams, particularly in Europe, are often responsible for navigating local regulations and implementing market-specific policies. That makes Europe not only a hub of AI innovation, but also one of the most important marketplaces for enterprise AI decision-making.
On that note, what opportunities do you see in the European AI ecosystem that deserve more attention from U.S. audiences?
Europe is home to an extraordinary concentration of established global enterprises with decades (in some cases centuries!) of industry expertise. Companies like SAP, alongside major Nordic, French, German, and other multinationals, build some of the defining products and services used globally. These organizations are challenged and rewarded by adopting and deploying AI, but their path is not easy. It’s not every day that a 400-year-old company is confronted with a technology that could fundamentally alter the world in which they’ve existed before the US was even formed.
The region is also emerging as a leader in applied AI. Think of manufacturing, energy, logistics, and health systems. Combine that with world-class research institutions and engineering talent from a few decades of Euro unicorns, and you can see how building AI solutions designed for real-world, high-stakes environments rather than pursuing frontier models alone is a natural posture. There’s less of a move-fast-and-break-things mentality and more of an application-specific use case that will drive the world forward.
For a US-based AI company that doesn’t operate extensively in Europe, why should EU AI policy be on its radar?
There are probably three different ways to answer this.
First, AI adoption in Europe’s regulated industries and public sector is further along than many U.S. audiences realize. The conversation has evolved beyond asking, “What can AI do?” to asking, “What should AI do?” Just because a technology can do something doesn’t necessarily mean it should. Europe has been at the forefront of that transition.
The second is the “Brussels effect.” Similar to how California’s regulations often shape standards across the U.S., the EU AI Act could become a de facto global framework. Any multinational company operating in Europe will need to comply with these requirements, meaning European policy is likely to influence AI governance well beyond the region itself.
And the other thing is compliance. A lot of people only see the European Union as a body of rule-makers, but it is interesting to take the view that compliance can be turned into a product asset if you’re building a company. When I talk to enterprise leaders, I say, “Don’t think of compliance as a tax. Think of it as a way to scale.” The more we see AI augment or supplant high-risk decision-making and customer-facing outcomes, the more this notion of compliance will be front and center. What happens when you have no governance? You end up with no patterns. No decision frameworks. You don’t have repeatability, which means it’s really hard to scale. I think what we have to do, and what Europe can help lead the charge on, is to help companies design for early rather than retrofitting compliance later.
We were hoping to touch on the misconception among American founders about European AI regulation, and it seems you just answered that question for us. Especially as we consider the stereotype that regulation holds us back, in reality it can lead to stronger compliance and ultimately enable innovation.
AI without governance is a toy. If there’s no governance in your AI strategy, then it’s just a pilot. It’s just a toy, and it will never scale because you don’t know how you did it, why you did it, or who is in charge when things go wrong. It may be a tax in the short term and may slow you down a bit, but when regulation doesn’t overreach and is properly applied and adhered to, it ultimately provides benefits to all.
The flip side is that Europeans think the U.S. is totally Wild West. Certainly, the U.S. is more aggressive in the technical sense with AI, but when you look at the 2026 wave of states creating their own AI bills and impending Executive Orders, the ecosystem is creating its own patchwork. And it would benefit European companies to know how that’s all playing out as well.
We’ve covered a lot of the what so far, so we’re excited to dig a little more into the who. Who are some of the policymakers, regulators, industry leaders, or researchers attendees should be especially excited to hear from?
Aside from the 75+ CEOs and leaders from some of the biggest AI companies globally, I’m particularly excited to hear from Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom, Clara Chappaz, who is the digital and AI ambassador for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in France, and Jelle Prins, the co-founder of Cradle, just to name a few. These people are not only influential in policy but also have real depth in AI that can give us insights into how governments are thinking about regulating and ensuring AI is beneficial for all. So many great founders, too.
If we’re having this conversation again a year from now, what do you think will have surprised people most about the relationship between AI innovation and regulation?
I would bet that the U.S. and Europe will stop looking so much like opposites, at least to some extent. Regions with clear, understandable rules will attract greater enterprise adoption by mitigating risk. Trust is an accelerant, not a break. The reason you fly on an airplane is that you believe it will work, and that’s because there are plenty of rules and regulations in place.
Is there anything else you think folks should know leading up to the event in September?
So many people are focusing on the enterprise audience, which I think is interesting. And yes, the enterprise is certainly investing quite a bit, but if you look at Cursor, the company reached $200M ARR before hiring a single enterprise sales rep. That means a lot of the growth and spend, if you take out circular purchasing, is happening within mid-market companies and through product-led growth at individual and team levels at companies of all sizes. So something to keep in mind if you’re attending HumanX in Europe or the U.S. is that we have to be honest with ourselves: a lot of AI adoption is happening at the individual level, then it reaches teams and divisions, and then the company.
It comes from the top down, too, but very few people right now are confident enough to impose top-down mandates on AI. We have to embrace where we are in the buying cycle, and we’re bringing that entire ecosystem together.
Learn more about HumanX Amsterdam and check out the full line-up of speakers here.
