AI research has advanced from being a concept in science fiction to becoming a basic part of modern society which delivers exceptional efficiency and user-friendly solutions. The implementation of AI systems that monitor our speech and behavior has created an experience which people find challenging to control thus leading to feelings of impending doom.
The O Assunto podcast featured a recent episode in which renowned economist and philosopher Eduardo Giannetti presented his argument that "hyper-globalisation" has now reached its final point of existence which began with the 1980s liberalization initiatives of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The current dismantling of this era takes place through three major events which include the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic and the protectionism policies of the Trump administration.
The fragmenting order
The warnings are coming from unlikely places. Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock — the world’s largest asset manager — recently cautioned investors that the "old capitalism" is fragmenting. Fink’s primary concern is that AI, far from being a universal tide that lifts all boats, may instead become a powerful engine for wealth concentration.
Giannetti agrees that we are at a crossroads. "Hyper-globalisation increased the interdependence of markets, but it also revealed immense fragilities," he says. The pandemic exposed the risks of lean, global supply chains that rely on a handful of suppliers for critical goods, from pharmaceutical ingredients in China to advanced chips in Taiwan. "The strict logic of economic efficiency failed to account for security," Giannetti observes.
AI: Productivity or peril?
While techno-optimists predict that AI could boost productivity by 5% in the coming years, others fear it could compromise 40% of jobs worldwide. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has even ranked the unchecked advancement of AI alongside the climate crisis as an existential threat to humanity.
The central question of the AI era is one of distribution. If AI generates a massive economic surplus by reducing costs and increasing efficiency, who captures that value? The fear is that this "surplus" will be hoovered up by a tiny elite: the owners of AI companies and a small class of highly skilled professionals capable of orchestrating these complex systems. Meanwhile, the "losers" will be the vast majority of professionals whose tasks are progressively automated.
"The machines of the 21st century are beginning to perform tasks alone, faster and more efficiently than humans, without needing holidays or sick leave," Giannetti notes. In a world where the 400 richest Americans already hold more wealth than the bottom 150 million, the potential for social instability is profound.
The Digital Oracle
This concern is not new. Joseph Weizenbaum, creator of ELIZA, the first chatbot in the 1960s, observed his own secretary developing an intimate bond with the program, preferring its counsel over human interaction. This anecdote highlights a recurring theme: humans readily project emotional and intellectual authority onto AI, even when aware of its artificial nature.
For Weizenbaum, any professional who did that would be abandoning or giving very little importance to interhuman relationships, which, in turn, were the field where all civilizations were produced. Civilizations are the fruit of communal life. As Aristotle would say, man is a "zoon politikon" (political/social animal) by nature, meaning that he only realizes his essence and achieves happiness (eudaimonia) by living in community (polis).
Today, this phenomenon has escalated. Reports, including one in The Economist, indicate a growing trend of individuals consulting AI chatbots for psychological support, often bypassing human therapists. While some argue that AI offers a non-judgmental space for users to hear what they want to hear, experts like Weizenbaum, even in the 1960s, posited that any professional replaceable by a digital program deserves to be replaced, implying a failure to provide the uniquely human elements of empathy and genuine connection.
According to evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, "we have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology". Therefore, our ancient emotional frameworks are ill-equipped to handle technologies capable of planetary destruction and profound social disruption. AI, in this context, can exacerbate isolation by validating users' biases and fostering a dangerous sense of self-sufficiency that detaches them further from social groups. The consequences can be dire.
The rapid expansion of human knowledge has also led to the demise of the traditional "scholar" — the polymath capable of mastering diverse fields. Today, specialization is so extreme that even experts struggle to communicate across disciplines without intermediaries. This hyper-specialization, a consequence of the Enlightenment's drive for rationalization, has gone too far, culminating in a model where the ultimate goal of human endeavor becomes a predictable, mathematical robot.
A new Cold War
We are also entering what many describe as a new Cold War. Instead of nuclear warheads, the new arms race is over "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI). The rivalry between the US and China is no longer just about trade; it is about sovereignty. Whichever nation achieves AGI first may gain an insurmountable lead in both economic and military power.
This competition is already hindering global regulation. When companies like Anthropic attempt to set ethical boundaries, governments simply turn to rivals like OpenAI. Without a transnational authority to set the rules of the game, we are in "dangerous territory," where corporate and national competition overrides the collective interests of humanity.
The Brazilian opportunity
However, Giannetti offers a surprisingly hopeful perspective for emerging economies, particularly Brazil. During the era of hyper-globalisation, Brazil struggled to integrate into global value chains, remaining largely a commodity exporter. But as the world moves toward "near-shoring" and seeks reliable, geopolitically stable partners with abundant natural resources, Brazil’s hand has strengthened.
"Brazil has everything it needs to rethink and reposition itself," Giannetti argues. The country’s wealth of critical minerals, clean energy, and food production capacity makes it an attractive partner for the US, China, and Europe alike. "We can use the rivalry between the great powers to our advantage, negotiating for technology and capital to industrialise our comparative advantages."
Brazil also has strong potential to become a global AI hub, but achieving this depends on establishing clear governance, regulation, and strategic direction. While countries like the U.S., China, and Europe currently lead, Brazil can compete by focusing on the responsible and strategic use of AI, especially in business applications.
A key priority is building robust AI governance within companies, starting with internal committees, clear policies, and employee training. Rather than restricting AI, organizations should guide its use to improve efficiency and competitiveness, while addressing risks such as misuse of generative tools.
Brazil can learn from global experiences but must avoid superficial adoption driven by hype. Many AI initiatives lack clear purpose or return on investment, and a significant portion may be abandoned as companies mature in their strategies.
Regulation remains a delicate balance: overly strict rules could hinder innovation, while insufficient oversight raises concerns about data security, copyright, and bias.
Finally, companies and universities play a critical role in building an AI ecosystem by promoting education, defining responsibilities, and integrating AI into organizational structures. With coordinated efforts in governance, strategy, and collaboration, Brazil can harness AI’s potential while managing its risks.
