The possibility that artificial intelligence might escape human control has generated social concern, but also a debate influenced by significant business and political interests. Francesc Bracero, a journalist specialized in technology, acknowledged in Claves del día that “there are few topics in the world where so many people are right and so many people are wrong,” because the boundaries between real risks, alarmism, and commercial strategies are “very subtle and very slippery.” Piergiorgio Sandri, an Economics journalist, dismissed as an immediate scenario an AI ready to annihilate humanity and placed the danger in another area: “The concern should not be whether it will kill us, but to what extent and how much it will be able to manipulate us.”
Read more Feijóo promises young people a “drastic” tax reduction for home purchase
Bracero explained that the leap from current chatbots to systems with greater autonomy occurs through so-called AI agents, programs designed to perform specific tasks. Referring to incidents that have fueled fear of losing control, he pointed out that behind some warnings there may also be a commercial struggle: “It seems that, instead of saying ‘control us,’ they are saying ‘control the one next door.’” That competitor is especially China, whose models, he noted, can cost “up to seventy times less” than those developed by some American companies.
Sandri linked part of the messages calling to halt the technology with business plans and social unrest caused by its impact on employment. “Companies seek business and profitability,” he stated before recalling that some of the main companies in the sector plan to go public. In his opinion, projecting an image of caution can help reduce distrust, but it does not mean they really intend to stop development: “They have no interest in stopping this technology. Moreover, it cannot be stopped because there are already too many investments committed.” The commitments made to shareholders and the weight of these investments in the economy make, according to Sandri, stopping the race practically unfeasible.
Read more Follow here the meeting of Joana Bonet with the newspaper subscribers, live
Both journalists agreed that corporate self-regulation would be insufficient. Sandri proposed starting to consider AI as “a dangerous tool of geostrategic importance” and advocated for an international convention similar to those created to control nuclear or biological weapons. Bracero shared that need, although he warned of the difficulties in reaching an agreement between the United States and China: “AI is not only a weapon to gain advantages for oneself, but also an economic weapon.” Both questioned whether Europe can effectively regulate a global technology if other powers advance with different rules or without common oversight mechanisms.
Beyond a hypothetical conscious intelligence, Bracero placed one of the immediate risks in the protection of the internet, an infrastructure on which “banks, supplies, and the entire functioning of our daily lives” already depend. Sandri added that AI must be seen as an increasingly relevant part of military systems, intelligence services, and financial markets. Regarding the possibility raised by Yuval Noah Harari that machines might make economic decisions incomprehensible to humans, he admitted that “it would not be unreasonable to think that risky money movements or capital decisions could occur.” The shared conclusion was that progress will hardly stop and that only an international response would reduce the risk that technological competition ends up putting its control beyond the reach of governments and citizens.
