Global Politics and Artificial Intelligence

Global politics operates through invisible mechanisms. Consider a recent example: as artificial intelligence technology rapidly advances, American AI companies have raised new concerns. Warnings that “AI technology is extremely dangerous, could destroy humankind, and such risks are increasing; therefore, the pace of AI development must be slowed down” have intensified. Notably, these narratives gained traction in the US during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit. Following the visit, US President Donald Trump convened a meeting with the heads of all major American AI companies to formulate an unofficial AI pact, the full details of which remain undisclosed.

While there may be genuine concerns behind these sudden warnings by American companies, geopolitical motives likely play a role as well. Politics appears to be mirroring the trajectory of nuclear technology. Secret talks are ongoing between the US and China, the frontrunners in AI.

Recall how nations that developed nuclear weapons subsequently formed an elite group, declaring themselves “nuclear-weapon states” and imposing international frameworks like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) to prevent other countries from acquiring them. A similar “AI politics” may now be unfolding.

Just as the argument was propagated that “dangerous items like nuclear weapons can only be trusted with responsible nations like us, and danger ensues if everyone has them,” a new “AI politics” narrative is being cultivated in the US. The argument claims that “managing dangerous AI is impossible for everyone; therefore, only select countries (such as the US and China) should be recognized as AI-holding nations, with restrictions applied to the rest.”

Ironically, the very creators of AI technology are sounding the alarm—crying that it is growing beyond control and poses an imminent threat to humanity, demanding slowed development—yet none are willing to voluntarily halt their own AI progress. Instead, their call is for other nations to step back first.

Scroll to Top