In the bustling core of Amsterdam’s financial district, the Zuidas, a new kind of energy has begun to pulse. Where legal firms and hedge funds once dominated the conversation, new voices now rise — voices discussing neural networks, vector databases, responsible machine learning, and the societal implications of artificial intelligence. The Zuidas — once the epicenter of traditional capital — is being reshaped by a different kind of currency: knowledge, data, and the collaborative potential of AI.

But this shift is not without tension. Beneath the surface lies a critical question: does the emerging digital infrastructure here carry with it a principle of solidarity? Or is AI in the Zuidas simply the newest manifestation of an old dynamic — exclusive, asymmetrical, and profit-driven? At first glance, there appears little solidarity in AI developed behind glass towers. Yet, in unexpected places, a different narrative is starting to take shape.

A prime example is AI House Amsterdam, launched by Prosus and located at the heart of the Zuidas. Unlike typical corporate headquarters, AI House positions itself as an open hub — not merely a site for the creation of AI, but for its communal cultivation. It offers workshops, free training programs, interdisciplinary residencies, and public events aimed at fostering a diverse and collaborative ecosystem. This represents an earnest attempt to transform the Zuidas from a secluded business zone into a space for shared learning and innovation. Still, the deeper question persists: who actually has access to these resources? The promise of openness means little if barriers remain high for those outside elite tech circles.

Beyond this, the city of Amsterdam is increasingly rooting its AI vision in public-private partnerships, most notably through the Amsterdam AI coalition. Framing itself around the ethos of “technology for people,” this collective explicitly emphasizes fairness, inclusivity, trust, and safety. These are lofty values — but values only become meaningful when operationalized. Who decides what constitutes fairness? Who ensures inclusion? Nevertheless, the fact that these discussions are being held within city frameworks and academic alliances is a meaningful step toward embedding ethics at the origin of technological development, not merely as an afterthought.

Within this emerging framework, some startups are enacting solidarity not through slogans, but through architecture — particularly in the form of open infrastructure. Weaviate, for instance, is developing an open-source vector database that forms a backbone for semantic search and AI retrieval systems. By making this core AI technology accessible to developers across the globe, Weaviate not only decentralizes power but encourages innovation from below. A similar ethos informs Baserow, a no-code database platform that rejects vendor lock-in in favor of open, self-hosted tools — another effort to democratize technological agency.

Other examples highlight a more social dimension. Platforms like OpenUp aim to expand access to mental health services through scalable, digital solutions. Meanwhile, Lalaland, operating at the intersection of AI and fashion, introduces virtual models designed to diversify representation in media imagery. Though their impact may be more symbolic than structural, these efforts demonstrate that AI can be aligned with issues of identity, well-being, and visibility.

Still, much of the innovation in the Zuidas and its ecosystem remains capital-intensive. Ventures such as Axelera AI, which focuses on advanced hardware for AI processing, are working to secure European technological sovereignty — a goal with strategic and ethical resonance — but their tools remain out of reach for many smaller players. And while artist residencies, such as those hosted at Nxt Museum in collaboration with Prosus, offer space for critical reflection, their reach is often limited to privileged participants already embedded within elite networks.

This reveals the deeper paradox: an increasing awareness of AI’s societal implications is emerging within an environment traditionally defined by opacity and power concentration. There is undeniable movement. Incubators like Impact Hub’s LIAISE program aim to support underrepresented founders. Startups with public-oriented missions are receiving more attention. Cross-sector coalitions are engaging with questions of responsibility and inclusion. Yet much of this remains fragile — dependent on temporary programs, donor capital, or corporate goodwill.

For solidarity to truly take root in the Zuidas, what is needed is not just symbolic gestures or short-term initiatives, but structural change: inclusive governance models, transparent AI auditing, equitable access to funding, and public accountability mechanisms that do not collapse under commercial pressure.

The essential question is no longer just how we build AI, but for whom we build it — and who holds the keys. The Zuidas, perched at the crossroads of technological ambition and social responsibility, has the potential to become more than a global innovation hub. It can become a site where infrastructure meets intention, where code is shaped not just by market logic but by collective ethics. The choice lies in whether that potential is realized — or merely promised.