On June 29, 2026, the Chairs of Advanced Studies for Sovereignty brought together around thirty participants to address an emerging question: how can cognitive sovereignty be defined and measured?
First, Yann Bonnet (co-founder of Campus Cyber) explored how Europe’s growing technological dependencies are gradually turning into cognitive dependencies. According to an academic article published in November 2025, the United States accounts for 75% of the world’s AI computing capacity, compared with 15% for China and just 5% for the European Union.
To initiate the discussion among participants, a first definition of cognitive sovereignty was presented, drawing on Mathieu Guidere (Paris 8), who defines it as: “the capacity of an individual, organization or collective to retain control over its mental processes, interpretive frameworks and symbolic productions in the face of increasingly autonomous technological systems.”
The first working session then enabled participants to challenge this definition of cognitive sovereignty, while identifying a range of threats and opportunities at the European level.
THREATS
- The most frequently mentioned threat concerns the growing delegation of cognitive functions to automated systems (loss of critical thinking, cognitive laziness, disappearance of basic learning, loss of expertise in certain professions);
- Information manipulation and the influence of collective representations (disinformation, deepfakes, micro-targeting, foreign interference, etc.) could reach an industrial scale through the amplification capabilities of generative AI;
- Cognition is becoming a new field of dependency (AI providers, American infrastructures, etc.), with the risk of a form of “intellectual colonialism”;
- The threat of cultural homogenization, resulting from the standardization of content and cognitive saturation caused by AI-generated homogeneous outputs (reduction of imagination and horizons).
OPPORTUNITIES
- Prioritizing education and training is a point of consensus among the groups, through the development of AI education, digital literacy and new competency frameworks;
- At the national level, there is a need to develop a coordinated public policy to foster cooperation across government departments, as well as between public and private stakeholders;
- At the European level, cognitive sovereignty could rely on the development of credible technological alternatives (tools, systems, infrastructures), rather than solely on regulatory approaches;
- Several contributions emphasize the need to develop a culture of risk, by raising awareness of critical thinking and fostering a culture of doubt.
During the second working session, the groups proposed several indicators and criteria for cognitive sovereignty that could contribute to the development of a future index, including:
MEASUREMENT CRITERIA
- Decision-making governance, through the actual degree of autonomy of governing bodies (e.g. Executive Committee composition, shareholding structure, nationality of decision-makers, share of AI in the decision-making process);
- Human skills and capabilities, measured through levels of digital literacy, media literacy and support for AI use;
- Assessment of technological dependencies, through an examination of the critical tools and providers used, reliance on generative AI and shadow AI;
- Model auditability and transparency, as well as the ability to demonstrate the quality of the information sources used.
The Chairs of Advanced Studies for Sovereignty would like to thank all participants for their contributions, reflections and questions, which provide a valuable foundation for the Chaires’ ongoing analysis.
This workshop represents another milestone in a broader exploratory process, through which we will further develop these initial ideas and confront them with new research.