Alarm Bells Are Ringing Over AI

Warnings about the risks associated with the development of artificial intelligence are mounting and, with increasing urgency, are overtaking every other threat in the news, whether war, environmental and climate concerns, or financial collapse. Progress in this field is advancing at such a rapid pace that there seems to be no turning back, with machines emerging from laboratories every day that are capable of moving independently, working in teams, and making complex decisions.

This technological revolution now threatens to give rise to an ideology of its own, a form of technological totalitarianism carrying immense promises and dangers that cannot be ignored. Most recently, images of robots in the streets breaking free from control and seizing the power of their developers have sounded alarm bells in more than one quarter. How can a robot trained in a laboratory escape and kill humans? Is it not dangerous to continue manufacturing robots equipped with increasingly powerful guns, such as the “ThunderMax 9000,” which is to equip the future “Death-Machine-8,” currently in the testing phase? Likewise, should laboratories really continue designing highly capable, extremely autonomous, and heavily armed defense systems? And should financial interests ever be allowed to prevail over humanity’s ethical imperatives?

Warnings are multiplying, along with concerns raised by Pope Leo XIV, amid numerous questions about the future of this fifth industrial revolution. They come in the wake of the uproar caused by Microsoft founder Bill Gates’s remarks about risks that have become serious enough to enable events that could result in “the death of a billion people,” whether through non-state actors manufacturing biological weapons, hackers, or runaway AI agents launching cyberattacks against foreign companies or infrastructure. Yet something even more dangerous is unfolding beyond what is happening on Earth. A new space race is currently under way, but this time the competition is not about space exploration. It is about weaponizing space.

The United States has become the first country to acknowledge deploying weapons designed to establish control in space in order to defend itself against adversaries. The United States has not specified what these weapons are, but military experts have speculated that they could include lasers or high-powered microwave systems designed to disable satellite electronics, or even offensive satellites using robotic arms to seize enemy spacecraft or push them out of orbit.

China was quick to condemn the American move, saying it opposed any “arms race in space.” Russia likewise stressed that space should remain free of weapons.

This militarization of space is another discouraging example of the erosion of the international governance framework established by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Negotiated at the height of the Cold War, the treaty was a remarkable achievement. Today, it enjoys the support of 118 countries. It enshrines principles according to which space should remain a common domain for all humankind and prohibits the deployment of any weapons of mass destruction in orbit, even as numerous countries and companies compete for strategic and commercial advantages. More than 80 countries now operate satellites, with a total of 18,000 satellites currently orbiting Earth. Elon Musk’s “Starlink” service accounts for more than half of them.

Even more alarming, however, is the prospect of any country beginning to destroy its adversaries’ satellites. The nightmare scenario is that cascading space debris could make it impossible to operate any satellites in low-Earth orbit for generations, a phenomenon known as the “Kessler Syndrome.” This is in addition to the use of such weapons, which has already begun in the war in Ukraine and in the Middle East, in what amounts to a double betrayal of humanity and a departure from the very concept of deterrence, under which all sides know one another’s capabilities and understand the potential consequences of their actions.

U.S. President Donald Trump showed a degree of openness when he found time to hold candid discussions on the matter in Washington with his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping. Hence the need to agree on basic standards for oversight, model testing, and the creation of containment mechanisms to reduce risks. There is a similar need for clear rules of engagement regarding artificial intelligence and nuclear and space weapons systems. Moreover, the greatest challenge may come from competitors developing powerful models they do not fully understand and cannot control, without complying with safety regulations.

Chinese officials are explicit in viewing America as the primary source of threats to AI safety, through its intensive use of AI-generated content to produce cyberweapons. China is seeking to broaden the range of technical tools used to assess risks and deepen international cooperation, particularly with countries of the Global South, while strengthening bilateral negotiations with the United States in areas where it believes it is lagging behind. The challenge now is to turn such concerns into a basis for discussions at the forthcoming G20 summit in Miami on December 14 and 15, to which Russian President Vladimir Putin has been invited. China may be prepared to establish a “leadership group” on artificial intelligence and wants an equal say in determining what should collectively be considered safe. The likely starting point would be a comprehensive agreement on artificial intelligence that eases shared concerns over rogue models and agents. Such an agreement would also require the participation of European Union countries, which remain behind in the global race.

At the same time, messages to the summit warn of the threat posed by advanced artificial intelligence models, or Frontier AI, to cybersecurity, as well as the risks of “more serious scenarios involving simultaneous financial-market disruptions across multiple companies or technological interdependence,” calling on finance ministers and central bank governors to impose safeguards on the technology. A letter issued by the Bank of England, whose governor also chairs the Financial Stability Board, underscores the extent to which the guardians of the global financial system are concerned about the risks of AI-assisted cyberattacks capable of penetrating external institutions and creating fake identities to deceive those carrying out tests. This further exposes existing vulnerabilities, including inflationary pressures, higher interest rates, the growing influence of investors, and inflated equity valuations.

There will be attempts to persuade the United States to reconsider its permissive approach to regulating a technology that threatens the financial system and beyond, while financial innovation itself could undermine the dollar’s dominance in global finance. Rising public debt, concerns over the erosion of central-bank independence, and the weaponization of the dollar through financial sanctions are all encouraging diversification away from the currency. Policymakers around the world now speak incessantly about moving away from the dollar, while gold’s share of central banks’ international reserves has risen sharply. The dollar’s share of foreign-exchange reserves now stands at 57 percent, compared with 71 percent in 2000. The “dollar privilege” that allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue debt at relatively favorable interest rates has also almost disappeared.

This undoubtedly paves the way for multipolarity. The Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, and Swiss franc have increased their combined shares of cross-border payments and reserves. Yet the sheer size of U.S. capital markets compared with those of other countries remains a major advantage, alongside America’s first-mover advantage in enabling private-sector innovations in settlement technologies that reinforce the dollar’s dominance. Conversely, countries that try to insulate themselves from these new technologies will be the most vulnerable. They need to develop broad, well-regulated financial markets, maintain disciplined monetary and fiscal policies, and strengthen the rule of law in order to confront reckless U.S. policies at a moment when trade, technology, security, and geopolitics are increasingly intertwined. Perhaps most troubling of all is the absence of any currency capable of anchoring the confidence of global investors amid disruptions that cannot be halted and that could lead to catastrophe in the Middle East, where everyone speaks in their speeches of peace, security, and growth, yet does little to stop the war and secure stability.