Artificial intelligence (AI) is often presented as the next peak of human innovation, owing to its potential to revolutionize industries, transform economies and improve lives. However, would AI truly benefit everyone or would it deepen existing divides? The answer depends on how the technology is developed, deployed and governed. Without purposeful interventions, AI’s potential would be harnessed for narrow gains by those who prioritize profits over people.
Encouragingly, the cost of AI development is beginning to decline. While OpenAI’s GPT-4 costs US$100 million to train, the Chinese start-up DeepSeek’s comparable model apparently costs a fraction of that. That trend has promising implications for developing countries, which generally lack the massive financial resources that earlier AI innovations required, but could soon be able to access and leverage those technologies more affordably. The choices we make today would determine whether AI becomes an instrument of inclusion or exclusion.
To ensure that AI serves humanity, we need to focus on incentives. AI development today is largely dictated by market forces, with an excessive focus on automation and monetizing personal data. The few countries spearheading AI technologies are investing billions of dollars in labor-replacing applications that would exacerbate inequality. Making matters worse, government subsidies frequently focus on technical merits, which often target efficiency, without sufficient consideration of their direct and indirect societal impact.
Illustration: Mountain People
Where jobs disappear, economic, social and political instability tend to follow. Yet public funding continues to flow toward automation. Governments must realign incentives to encourage AI that serves social needs, such as enhancing education, improving health outcomes and tackling climate challenges. AI should empower, not replace, human workers. Population aging is a major challenge in some countries. Although household robots might help address some of the problems of an aging population, the frontier of current development focuses on priorities such as dynamic performance (running, jumping or obstacle avoidance) in outdoor environments, rather than functions centering on safety and practicality, daily living assistance or chronic disease management.
The task cannot be left to venture capital alone, which funneled US$131.5 billion into start-ups last year, largely chasing overhyped and speculative technologies such as artificial general intelligence. Narrower-purpose models can advance medical diagnostics, assist radiologists, predict natural disasters and much more. Redirecting investments toward solutions that directly benefit society is essential to keeping AI development aligned with collective progress, rather than shareholder value.
It is also necessary to bridge the divide between developed and developing economies. AI’s transformative potential remains largely untapped in low and middle-income countries, where inadequate infrastructure, limited skills and resource constraints hinder adoption. Left unaddressed, that technological divide would only widen global inequalities.
Consider what AI could do just for healthcare. It could broaden access to personalized medicine, giving patients in resource-limited settings tailored treatments with greater efficacy and fewer adverse effects. It could assist in diagnosis, by helping doctors detect diseases earlier and more accurately. And it could improve medical education, using adaptive learning and real-time feedback to train medical professionals in underserved areas.
More broadly, AI-powered adaptive learning systems are already customizing educational content to meet individual needs and bridge knowledge gaps. AI tutoring systems offer personalized instruction that increases engagement and improves outcomes. By making it far easier to learn a new language and acquire new skills, technology could drive a massive expansion of economic opportunities, particularly for marginalized communities.
Nor are the uses confined to healthcare and education. The University of Oxford’s Inclusive Digital Model demonstrates that equipping marginalized groups — especially women and young people — with digital skills allow them to participate in the global digital economy, reducing income disparities.
However, global cooperation is crucial to unlock those benefits. AI must be approached collectively, such as through south-south initiatives to create solutions tailored to developing countries’ circumstances and needs. By fostering partnerships and knowledge-sharing, lower and middle-income countries can bridge the technological divide and ensure that AI serves a broad range of constituencies beyond the dominant players.
Then there is the question of safety and ethical use. Those issues must also be addressed globally. Without robust ethical frameworks, AI can be — and has already been — used for harmful purposes, from mass surveillance to the spread of misinformation.
The international community would need to agree on shared principles to ensure that AI is used consistently and responsibly. The UN — through inclusive platforms such as the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development — can help shape global regulations. The top priorities should be transparency (ensuring that AI decisionmaking is discernible and explainable), data sovereignty (protecting individuals’ and countries’ control over their own data), harm prevention (prohibiting applications that undermine human rights) and equitable access. Multilateral initiatives to develop digital infrastructure and skills can help to ensure that no country is left behind.
That is not only an issue for policymakers and the private sector. Throughout history, transformative change has often started from below. Women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement and climate activism all began with grassroots efforts that grew into powerful forces for change. A similar movement is needed to steer AI in the right direction. Activists can highlight the risks of unregulated AI, and apply pressure on governments and corporations to put human-centered innovation first.
AI’s social, economic and political effects would not naturally bend toward inclusion or equity. Governments must steer incentives toward innovation that augments human potential. Global organizations must establish ethical frameworks to safeguard human rights and data sovereignty. And civil society must hold political and business leaders accountable.
The decisions made today would determine whether AI becomes a bridge or a chasm between the world’s haves and have-nots. International collaboration, ethical governance and public pressure can ensure that we make the right ones.
Shamika Sirimanne is senior adviser to the secretary-general of UN Trade and Development. Xiaolan Fu is professor of technology and international development at the University of Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS