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
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS