The recent suicide bombing in Islamabad, which tragically killed 12 people and injured 27, serves as a stark reminder of the volatile world we inhabit. When Pakistan's Defense Minister, Khawaja Mohammad Asif, declared, "We are in a state of war" and directly blamed Kabul, calling the attack "a message from Kabul" (12 killed in deadliest attack on Pakistan’s heartland in almost a decade, A suicide bomber targets an Islamabad court, killing at least 12 people and wounding 27), my thoughts immediately turned to the enduring cycles of conflict and the futility of perpetual blame. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi's allegations of "Indian-backed elements and Afghan Taliban proxies" further illustrate this complex web of accusations that often clouds the path to peace.
I have often reflected on the nature of global instability, particularly regarding interstate terrorism and proxy wars. Years ago, I wrote about how such aggressions were proliferating worldwide, and when they failed to achieve their goals, nuclear blackmail often held the world hostage. I even proposed an idealistic, yet worth debating, idea: "From Inter-Pol to Inter-Mil?" in November 2015 (From Inter-Pol to Inter-Mil?). It's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is today, as we witness nations grappling with seemingly intractable security challenges. I had also pointed out potential global shocks, including "Terror Exports [Pakistan]" in 2011, noting that a "Black Swan" event was always around the corner (A full-blown crisis). The current events underscore a persistent pattern I've observed.
These ongoing conflicts are deeply intertwined with economic and political institutions, a theme recently recognized by the Nobel Prize in Economics. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson were awarded the prize for their work investigating how institutions influence a country’s success, and why some nations are rich while others are poor (Economics Nobel awarded for study of inequality, A Nobel prize for explaining why nations fail or succeed). They argued that differences in the quality of economic and political institutions best explain the divergence in economic fates. This resonates with my own observations, as articulated in my blog, "Equal is Exception, Unequal is Ubiquitous" (Equal is Exception, Unequal is Ubiquitous), where I highlighted how political and economic systems, over hundreds of years, have largely failed to reduce inequalities significantly.
Reflecting on these deep-seated issues, I can't help but wonder if advanced technologies, like Artificial Intelligence, could offer a new paradigm. In my discussions with ChatGPT, I explored whether AI could help reduce global wealth inequality. While ChatGPT acknowledged its potential for enhanced productivity, targeted social programs, and financial inclusion, it also raised a critical concern: if left unchecked, AI could exacerbate the divide between the rich and the poor. My concern intensified upon seeing data from the World Intellectual Property Organization, which showed that most Generative AI patents are concentrated among a handful of companies like Tencent, Ping An Insurance, Baidu, Chinese Academy of Sciences, IBM, Alibaba Group, Samsung Electronics, Alphabet, ByteDance, and Microsoft.
This concentration of power echoed ChatGPT's fears, leading me to propose that GenAI should be treated as a global public good, like the air we breathe. I suggested that the UN charter should be modified to oblige these companies to share their GenAI with any UN member country. While acknowledging the complexities of intellectual property and innovation incentives, ChatGPT recognized the profound potential of this idea to address global inequalities.
Ultimately, the path to a more peaceful and equitable world demands a re-evaluation of our international frameworks, not just in terms of security but also in how we govern and share transformative technologies. The ongoing conflicts, the persistent inequalities, and the concentration of technological power all point to an urgent need for global cooperation and a vision that transcends nationalistic interests and corporate monopolies.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment