We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Is AI's "intelligence" an illusion?
Is ChatGPT all it’s cracked up to be? Will truth survive the evolution of artificial intelligence?
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, cognitive scientist and AI researcher Gary Marcus breaks down the recent advances––and inherent risks––of generative AI.
AI-powered, large language model tools like the text-to-text generator ChatGPT or the text-to-image generator Midjourney can do magical things like write a college term paper in Klingon or instantly create nine images of a slice of bread ascending to heaven.
But there’s still a lot they can’t do: namely, they have a pretty hard time with the concept of truth, often presenting inaccurate or plainly false information as facts. As generative AI becomes more widespread, it will undoubtedly change the way we live, in both good ways and bad.
“Large language models are actually special in their unreliability,” Marcus says on GZERO World, “They're arguably the most versatile AI technique that's ever been developed, but they're also the least reliable AI technique that's ever gone mainstream.”
Marcus sits down with Ian Bremmer to talk about the underlying technology behind generative AI, how it differs from the “good old-fashioned AI” of previous generations, and what effective, global AI regulation might look like.
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- ChatGPT and the 2024 US election ›
- Can we trust AI to tell the truth? ›
- Ian interviews Scott Galloway: the ChatGPT revolution & tech peril ›
- Emotional AI: More harm than good? ›
- Podcast: Getting to know generative AI with Gary Marcus ›
- Artificial intelligence: How soon will we see meaningful progress? - GZERO Media ›
- Will consumers ever trust AI? Regulations and guardrails are key - GZERO Media ›
- UK AI Safety Summit brings government leaders and AI experts together - GZERO Media ›
- Top stories of 2023: GZERO World with Ian Bremmer - GZERO Media ›
Elon Musk's Starlink cutoff controversy
I think it's a fascinating question. And it gets to a point of what I call a technopolar world, not unipolar, not bipolar, not multipolar, technopolar. In other words, for all of our lives, we've talked about a world where nation states, where governments are the principal actors with sovereignty over outcomes that matter critically for national security. Now, here you have the Russians invading Ukraine. One of the biggest challenges to the geopolitical order since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. And yet, a core decision about whether or not Ukraine will be able to defend itself is being made not by the United States or NATO providing the military support, but by a technology company. Now, the Ukrainian government is being quite critical of some of the decisions that Elon Musk has made in restricting the use for Starlink, for the Ukrainians.
I don't think that's fair criticism by itself. I think we need to recognize that Starlink's availability to the Ukrainians was absolutely essential in helping the government and the military leaders actually communicate with their soldiers on the front lines. And if it wasn't for Starlink, and if it wasn't for the role of many other technology companies, largely in the United States, not at all clear to me that Zelensky would still be in power today. Certainly the Ukrainians would have lost a lot more territory and they'd be in much worse position than they are. So I think that the Ukrainians still owe Elon a significant debt. But I also raise a much bigger question, which is, should an individual CEO, should an individual centibillionaire be making these decisions about outcomes of life and death for 44 million Ukrainians?
And they're the answer is much more concerning. Because, of course, Elon and all of these technology companies, they're not treaty signatories with NATO. They don't have any obligation to do anything other than Netflix and chill. And yet they're absolutely indispensable for national security in these countries as increasingly national security becomes a matter of not just what happens with bombs and rockets, but also what happens in the digital world, what happens in cyberspace, what happens in communications, in the collection of intelligence. As Elon and others become principal actors in a military industrial technological complex, accountability for those decisions is very deeply concerning if it's only in the hands of those individuals. Now, I think it's a little easier with SpaceX, because SpaceX is, after all, a company that is overwhelmingly funded by the US government, by the Pentagon and by NASA. And so ultimately, either legally through regulation or informally through pressure on the basis of providing those contracts, there is certainly a level of influence that the US government would be able to have over a SpaceX to ensure that Starlink is made available fully to the Ukrainians as US. and NATO's allies see fit.
Just as the American government would take vigorous exception if SpaceX and Starlink were suddenly having their technologies made available to American adversaries. Having said that, keep in mind that there is no other viable technology that is presently available. So, if it's not Starlink, it's nothing for the Ukrainians. And what about a country like Taiwan? Very concerned increasingly that we see the status quo on Taiwan eroding from the United States, as Biden says that he would defend Taiwan and as the Americans put export controls on TSMC, the semiconductor company, and from the Chinese side, as the Chinese keep sending over drones and aircraft to invade Taiwanese airspace. Well, if there were cyber attacks from mainland China into Taiwan, would Starlink be made available in Taiwan the way it has been in Ukraine, even though imperfectly in Ukraine? And the answer to that, I suspect, would be absolutely not, because it would prevent Elon Musk from doing effective business in mainland China, including Tesla. Would the Chinese use that leverage against Elon in a way that the American government had not been against SpaceX?
Absolutely they would. And so what does that mean? Does it mean that that just means Taiwan doesn't get that ability to defend itself? Or does the US government have to somehow, through force majeure, nationalize the technology and take it away from SpaceX or force SpaceX to provide Starlink to Taiwan? Or does the US government have to build its own alternative, where it has direct ownership of such a company and technology. Look, the fact is this is a very, very messy piece of geopolitical power where increasingly technology companies are acting as sovereigns. And until and unless those questions are answered, we are increasingly living in a technopolar world.
That's it for me. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
Ian Explains: Why big tech will rule the world
Who runs the world? It used to be an easy question to answer, but the next global super power isn’t who you think it is—not the US, not China. In fact, it’s not a country at all ... It’s technology.
On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down the three global orders of the current geopolitical landscape.
First is the global security order, where the US is the undisputed leader. It’s the only country that can send soldiers, sailors, and military hardware to every corner of the world. Next there’s the global economic world order, which has no single leader. The US and China are too economically interdependent to couple from each other; the European Union is the world’s largest common market; Japan is a global economic power; India’s economy is growing rapidly … You get the idea.
The third global order isn’t quite here yet but it will bring unprecedented changes to our everyday lives: the digital order. As new artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney hit the market, techn firms control increasingly large data sets about massive swaths of the world’s population—what we think, what we feel, how we use the internet. And social media companies can impact elections with a simple tweak of an algorithm.
Who will hold these companies to account as they release new, more advanced tools? What will they do with the massive amounts of data they collect on us and our environment? Most importantly, how will technology companies use their power?
For more on the power of Big Tech and advances in AI technology, watch the upcoming episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
What is a techno-prudential approach to AI governance?
Can the world learn how to govern artificial intelligence before it’s too late?
According to Ian Bremmer, founder and president of GZERO Media and Eurasia Group, AI’s power paradox is that it’s both too powerful to easily govern, but too beneficial to outright ban. In a new video series on AI, Bremmer introduces the idea of “techno-prudentialism.” A mouthful of a word that will almost certainly come to define the way AI is governed, regulated, and controlled.
Techno-prudentialism is the idea that we need to identify and limit risks to global stability posed by AI without choking off innovation and the opportunities that come with it. It’s a tricky tightrope to walk, but it’s similar to how global finance is governed, known as macro-prudentialism. Despite conflict between, say, the US, China, and Europe, they all work together within institutions like the Bank of International Settlements, the IMF, and the Financial Stability Board to keep markets functioning. The do it because global finance is too important to allow it to break.
Techno-prudentialism applies that idea to the AI space. Bremmer lays out the case for a collective, international effort in AI governance, emphasizing the need for global institutions to address the many ways AI could challenge geopolitical stability. As the balance of power shifts towards technology companies in a techno-polar world [HYPERLINK TO TECHNO-POLAR VIDEO], Bremmer envisions these institutions creating a framework that balances AI’s power and benefits, while preventing it from inciting political instability on a global scale.
What is a technopolar world?
Who runs the world? In a series of videos about artificial intelligence, Ian Bremmer, founder and president of GZERO Media and Eurasia Group introduces the concept of a technopolar world––one where technology companies wield unprecedented influence on the global stage, where sovereignty and influence is determined not by physical territory or military might, but control over data, servers, and, crucially, algorithms.
We aren’t yet in a fully technopolar world, but we do exist in a digital order where major tech companies hold sway over standards, operations, interactions, security and economics in the virtual realm. And Bremmer says this is just the beginning. He highlights two key advantages that technology companies have: their dominance over the digital space, which profoundly impacts the lives of billions of people every day, as well as their role in providing critical digital infrastructure required to run a modern economy and society.
As artificial intelligence and other transformative technologies advance, and more and more of our daily life shifts online, Bremmer predicts a shift in power dynamics, where tech companies extend their reach beyond the digital sphere into economics, politics, and even national security. This will almost certainly challenge traditional ideas about global power, which may be determined as much by competition between nation states and tech companies as it is, say, between the US and China. Incorporating tech firms into governance models may be necessary to effectively navigate the complexity of a technopolar world, Bremmer argues. Ultimately, how these companies choose to wield power and their interactions with governments will shape the trajectory of our economic, social, and political futures.
See more of GZERO Media's coverage on artificial intelligence and geopolitics,
A vision for inclusive AI governance
Casting a spotlight on the intricate landscape of AI governance, Ian Bremmer, president and founder of GZERO Media and Eurasia Group, and Mustafa Suleyman, CEO and co-founder of Inflection AI, eloquently unravel the pressing need for collaboration between governments, advanced industrial players, corporations, and a diverse spectrum of stakeholders in the AI domain. The exponential pace of this technological evolution demands a united front and the stakes have never been higher. There is urgency of getting AI governance right while the perils of getting it wrong could be catastrophic. While tech giants acknowledge this necessity, they remain engrossed in their domains, urging the imperative for collective action.
Mustafa vividly illustrates the competitive dynamics among AI developers vying for supremacy, stressing that cooperation between corporations and governments is pivotal. Ian emphasizes the existing techno-polar world and the importance of inclusivity in shaping AI's trajectory. The discourse emphasizes that the way forward isn't confined to legislative channels, but rather a tapestry woven with non-governmental organizations, academics, critics, and civil society entities. Mustafa propounds the notion that diversity and inclusivity breed resilience. The duo makes a compelling case for stakeholders' collaboration. They draw a parallel between their alignment and the potential accord between major tech leaders and governments.
Watch the full conversation: Governing AI Before It’s Too Late
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Podcast: Artificial intelligence new rules: Ian Bremmer and Mustafa Suleyman explain the AI power paradox ›
- How should artificial intelligence be governed? ›
- Making rules for AI … before it’s too late ›
- The AI power paradox: Rules for AI's power ›
- How AI can be used in public policy: Anne Witkowsky - GZERO Media ›
- Use new data to fight climate change & other challenges: UN tech envoy - GZERO Media ›
- Rishi Sunak's first-ever UK AI Safety Summit: What to expect - GZERO Media ›
- State of the World with Ian Bremmer: December 2023 ›
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets Tesla CEO Elon Musk in New York.
Elon Musk's geopolitical clout grows as he meets Modi
After Narendra Modi met Elon Musk on Tuesday, the Indian PM immediately took to Twitter to update his 88+ million followers about his friendly chat with the world's richest man. Musk, of course, is the owner of the social media platform, whose most popular politician is ... Modi.
The thing is, Musk not only controls Twitter, which has often tussled with India over censorship. He also calls the shots at Tesla, a big name in the electric vehicle business, and at Starlink, the satellite internet provider which has kept Ukraine online since the Russian invasion.
Visiting world leaders meeting captains of industry is nothing new. But Musk has unique geopolitical sway in today's "technopolar world" because his companies operate in both the "real" economy (i.e. they make physical stuff people want to buy) and the digital space, where public discourse takes place nowadays.
That makes Musk arguably more influential than most world leaders right now and any business leader in recent memory. As GZERO writer Alex Kliment puts it, he's William Randolph Hearst meets Henry Ford, all in one. No wonder he also recently met Xi Jinping and often talks to Vladimir Putin.
Whatever you think of Musk, his geopolitical clout is undeniable in a future "digital order" in which the digital space itself becomes the main arena for great-power competition and tech companies set the rules instead of governments. But his chumminess with three authoritarian leaders is no harbinger of democracy for the technopolar world.
Who runs the world?
That’s the subject of my just-released TED Talk. And, believe it or not, it used to be an easy question to answer.
Editor's Note: The following is adapted from this TED Talk. Another version of this appears on the Foreign Policy site.
If you’re over 45, like me, you grew up in a world dominated by two superpowers. The United States and its allies set the rules on one side of the Berlin Wall, while the Soviet Union called the shots on the other. Nearly every other country had to align its political, economic, and security systems with one side or the other. That was a bipolar world.
If you’re under 45, you came of age after the Soviet Union collapsed. The US became the world’s sole superpower, dictating outcomes both through its dominant role in international organizations and also by exerting raw power. That was a unipolar world.
About 15 years ago, the world changed again – and it got a lot more complicated. The United States became less interested in being the world’s policeman, the architect of global trade, and even the cheerleader of global values. And lots of other countries grew powerful enough to ignore rules they didn’t like and, occasionally, to set some themselves. That’s the G-Zero world order I named my media company after and constantly write about – a leaderless world.
Three things happened to cause this “geopolitical recession” – when the global architecture no longer lines up with the underlying balance of power.
First, the US didn’t bring Russia into the US-led international order. Now a former great power in serious decline, Russia has become extremely angry and sees the US as its primary adversary on the global stage. We can argue about who is most to blame for this, but the fact is we are where we are.
Second, the US did bring China into US-led institutions – but on the presumption that as the Chinese grew more integrated, wealthy, and powerful, they would also become American (i.e., a free-market democracy willing to play by the rules without wanting to change them). As it turns out, they’re still Chinese – and the US is not ready to accept that.
And third, the US and its allies ignored the tens of millions of their own citizens who felt left behind by globalization. After decades of benign neglect, most of these citizens have grown fundamentally mistrustful of their governments and of democracy itself, in turn making their leaders less able or willing to lead.
All the geopolitical crises you see in the headlines every day? Over 90% of them trace back directly or indirectly to these three issues.
Yet for better or worse, geopolitical recessions don’t last forever. After all, nature abhors a (power) vacuum. And the coming global order is something very, very different from what we’ve become used to.
Where we are now
We no longer live in a unipolar or bipolar or multipolar world. Why? Because we no longer have superpowers – as in, countries that exert global power in every domain. That’s right, the US and China are not superpowers today. And no superpowers means no single global order. Instead, what we have today is multiple world orders, separate but interconnected.
First, we have a unipolar security order. The US is the only country that can send soldiers, sailors, and military hardware to every corner of the world. Nobody else comes close. America’s role in the security order today is more essential – and indeed more dominant – than it was a decade ago.
China is rapidly growing its military capabilities in Asia, but nowhere else in a significant way. That’s increasingly concerning to America’s Indo-Pacific allies, who now rely on the US security umbrella more than before. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has similarly made Europe the most dependent on US-led NATO it has been in decades. Meanwhile, Russia’s military has been weakened by the loss of over 200,000 troops and much of its critical materiel in Ukraine, all of which it’ll find hard to rebuild in the face of Western sanctions.
Yes, China, Russia, and others have nuclear weapons, but actually using them is still suicide. The US is the world’s sole security superpower – and will remain so for at least the next decade.
We also have a multipolar economic order. There, global power is more widely shared. The US has a robust and dynamic economy, still the world’s largest. But military might doesn’t allow Washington to set the rules for the global economy.
Despite all the talk about a new cold war, the US and China are far too economically interdependent to decouple from each other. Bilateral trade between the two keeps making new highs, and other countries want access to both American muscle and the Chinese market (soon to become the world’s largest). You can’t have an economic cold war if there’s no one willing to fight it.
Meanwhile, the European Union is the world’s largest common market, and it’s able to set rules and standards that the Americans, Chinese, and others have to accept as the price of doing business with it. Japan is still a global economic power, if barely. India’s economy is growing rapidly, and with it, so is its influence on the global stage.
The relative importance of these and other economies will continue to shift over the coming decade, but what’s certain is that the global economic order is and will remain a multipolar order.
Where we’re going
So far, I’ve written about the two world orders we already see. But there’s a third, rapidly emerging order where we find the most uncertainty … and the greatest changes to the world we know: the digital order. There, unlike every other geopolitical order past and present, the dominant actors setting rules and exerting power aren’t governments but technology companies.
You’ve heard how NATO weapons, intelligence, and training have helped Ukrainians defend their land. But if Western tech companies hadn’t quickly come to the rescue in the early days of the invasion – fending off Russian cyberattacks and allowing Ukrainian leaders to communicate with their soldiers on the front lines – Russia would have knocked Ukraine completely offline within weeks, effectively ending (and winning) the war. I don’t think I exaggerate when I say President Zelensky probably wouldn’t be in power today if not for tech companies and their power in the new digital order.
Tech companies decide whether Donald Trump can speak without filters and in real time to hundreds of millions of people as he runs for president again. Without social media and its ability to mass market conspiracy theories, there is no January 6 insurrection on Capitol Hill, no trucker riots in Ottawa, no January 8 revolt in Brazil.
Tech companies even define our identities. We used to wonder whether human behavior was primarily the result of nature or nurture. No longer – today, it’s nature, nurture, and algorithm. The digital order is becoming a critical determinant of how we live, what we believe in, what we want … and what we’re willing to do to get it.
That’s a staggering amount of power that tech companies have amassed. And it leads to the biggest question for all of us: How will technology companies use their power? The answer depends largely on what they want to be when they grow up. I see three possible scenarios.
If American and Chinese political leaders continue to assert themselves ever more forcefully in the digital space, and if the tech companies then line up with their home governments, then we’ll end up in a technology cold war between the US and China. The digital world will be split in two, other countries will be forced to choose sides, and globalization will fragment to a degree unprecedented in the last several decades.
If the tech companies stick with global growth strategies, refusing to align with governments and preserving the existing divide between the physical and digital fields of competition, then we’ll see a new globalization – a globalized digital order. Tech companies will remain sovereign in the digital space, competing largely with each other for profits – and with governments for geopolitical power much in the same way that major state actors presently jockey for influence in the space where the economic and security orders overlap.
But if the digital space itself becomes the most important arena of great power competition, with the power of governments continuing to erode relative to the power of tech companies, then the digital order itself will become the dominant global order. If that happens, we’ll have a post-Westphalian world – a technopolar order dominated by tech companies as the central players in 21st-century geopolitics.
All three of these scenarios strike me as wholly plausible. Much depends on how the explosive nature of artificial intelligence drives changes in existing power structures, whether or not governments are able and willing to regulate tech companies, and – most critically – how tech leaders decide they want to use their newfound power.
These questions will determine whether we have a brighter future or a world without freedom.