Yet this backlash is itself dangerous.\u00a0AI<\/small>\u00a0promises to change the world for the better, much as electricity or the steam engine did. Not long ago, the era-defining problem for the rich world was stagnant economic growth and the populism it unleashed. Now it has a technology that could power a surge in productivity and incomes, help find cures for untreatable diseases and improve everything from education to green tech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All this could be lost if countries starve the technology of computing power or regulate it into uselessness. Look at mRNA<\/small> vaccines research, which has been held back after a backlash during the covid-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Scenarios in which some countries give in to popular rage but others forge ahead are also worrying. If America succumbs, it could cede the global ai<\/small> frontier, and the attendant cyber and military capabilities, to authoritarian China<\/a>. Europe and Canada are more risk-averse than America. If they choked off AI<\/small> while the rest of the world kept pushing forward, their losses could be unrecoverable. More than two centuries after the Industrial Revolution, few countries have managed to catch up with the first movers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the stakes are high. Can governments do anything about it? Grand proclamations about the shape of a \u201csocial contract\u201d for a post-AI<\/small> world are good fodder for blog posts but offer little help today. Besides, the unknowns are still large enough to make the exercise almost futile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Better to be incremental. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Read it all<\/a>.<\/p> Persuading voters that their interests are being served by AI\u2019s disruption has become as important as making models better. The failure to do so would destroy vast opportunities for humanity https:\/\/t.co\/5S9EGzPIHg<\/a><\/p>— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 25, 2026<\/a><\/blockquote>