Davos '26 and Thoughts on AI

Last week, every media outlet, social or traditional, was buzzing about the Davos meeting. I might be a bit late to the party, but I still want to write a little about it, maybe even spark a discussion.

AI was probably the most talked-about and pondered topic at Davos this year. It’s no longer just a visionary concept or something for the future; now, they’re discussing “frameworks,” “governance,” “ethics,” and “compliance.”

In fact, the evaluations from Stanford Human-Centered AI (HAI) make it clear that this year’s AI discussions have shifted from vision to application, responsibility, and governance. 🔗 Stanford HAI

Reports now focus less on the vision itself and more on how far we’ve come in making that vision a reality. It feels like AI has moved beyond being a futuristic sci-fi idea; the conversations, reports, and evaluations give the sense that the roadmap is drawn and the goals are clear.

This approach aligns with the reports and frameworks published by the World Economic Forum on AI governance and global collaborations. WEF is now more concerned with how AI will be governed and the responsibilities involved, rather than just how it will be developed. 🔗 World Economic Forum

This story has both similarities and differences with past events like the .com bubble or social media’s takeover of our lives. The .com era seemed to start and end as something that concerned only a specific group, more about stock prices than changing our lives.

With social media, none of us could really foresee what was coming. When I first joined Facebook, I couldn’t imagine that a few years later, my parents in their 70s would be active users, or that these platforms would create a massive economy through ads and sales.

At this point, one of the frequently referenced (though somewhat controversial) names at Davos, Yuval Noah Harari, highlights that what sets AI apart from previous technological transformations is its ability to directly influence language production, narrative creation, and decision-making processes. 🔗 BloombergHT

Now, onto AI. OpenAI might have set a record with its growth and speed of reaching end users; but does this adoption, centered around chatting with ChatGPT, really give us a clear idea of where AI could go or which areas of our lives it might touch?

One of the key points emphasized in Stanford HAI’s evaluations is that end-user adoption is not the same as corporate and structural transformation. So, widespread use on the surface doesn’t mean deep and lasting integration. 🔗 Stanford HAI

Personally, while I know AI will have a huge impact, I find myself oscillating between a Terminator scenario and a utopian future. Because it’s hard to predict the possibilities and outcomes. And on the other hand, is unchecked power really power at all?

Who will hold this paradigm? In whose favor will the power be used? Is it for the greater good or just maintaining existing inequalities?

These questions were among the most frequently repeated concerns under the AI ethics and governance discussions at Davos. Especially the AI governance debates focused more on the societal and institutional impacts than on the technical capabilities of the technology. 🔗 World Economic Forum

What are we handing over about ourselves, and what more will we? Is there a commitment or roadmap for what we’ve handed over? Will it just be helpful, or will it further divide those who adapt from those who don’t?

These questions could go on, but I don’t mean to dampen spirits. A massive change is coming; in fact, it’s already started. Now the question is not what will happen, but how it will happen.

While thinking about all this, there’s another question I can’t shake: when we look at how the .com, social media, and AI stories reached users, why does Web3 still seem so limited, sometimes even “snobbish”?

If Web3 could touch more people’s daily lives from where it stands today, where would we be? Who would be affected, and how?

I can’t help it; this question keeps circling in my mind, and I can’t ignore it. 😊