AI as World Leader: Utopia or Better Alternative?

Mr. Frühwach posed a captivating and challenging question in his commentary: Could an ethically guided AI govern more justly than fallible human leaders?

Our Political Systems and Their Roots:

Our political systems have deep historical roots and appear today in various forms—ranging from liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes to hybrid systems that blend elements of different ideologies. Examples include:

- Democracy: Originating from the Greek polis, based on participation and majority decisions.
- Communism: Inspired by Marx, pursuing equality through collective ownership.
- Monarchies: Dominant for centuries, often legitimized by divine right.
- Theocracies: States where religion and politics merge.
- Fascism: An ideology promoting national unity through authoritarian control and suppression.

Although these systems have historically proven effective, they are often corrupted or destroyed from within by their own creators.

The Illusion of AI Control:

In contrast, AI appears programmatically controllable—an impression that history has already disproved. Instances of election manipulation through social media algorithms are prime examples. Such algorithms spread misinformation, influenced public opinion, and undermined democratic processes. Simultaneously, a growing danger emerges: Natural Intelligences (NI) exploit democratic instruments such as elections, manipulating and deceiving the public to seize power. Once in control, they systematically dismantle democratic institutions.

Current Global Developments Reflect This Trend:
- Democracies in Crisis: USA, Russia, Brazil, Hungary, Turkey.
- Struggles for Freedom: Ukraine, Venezuela, Myanmar, Georgia, Tunisia, Israel.
- Populist Threats: France, Italy, Netherlands, East Germany.
- Return to Democracy: Poland, South Africa—often after periods of right-wing populist dominance.

Geopolitical Reality: Power or Morality?
In light of these crises, one pressing question arises: Under what conditions could an AI, as a state or even global leader, present a more just alternative?

A Leviathan Made of Silicon:

According to Hobbes, people trade freedom for protection—a social contract that grants security at the expense of personal liberty. But what if an AI assumes this role?

An AI world leader could provide protection through constant data analysis and predictive decisions—but who defines its ethical standards, and how are they reviewed?

This question is critical because an AI governed by utilitarian or engagement-oriented metrics could profoundly alter societal dynamics. Algorithms optimized for engagement already reveal the dark side of uncontrolled AI-driven decisions: polarization, radicalization, and echo chambers fueled by misinformation. Such effects show how an AI leader, lacking clear ethical guardrails, could erode democratic foundations.

Key Questions of Governance:
- Programming Ethics: Who defines the values that guide AI—governments, corporations, or citizens?
- Social Contract 2.0: Could citizens participate in digital referendums to co-author a democratic AI contract?
- Power Balance: How can we prevent the AI or its developers from monopolizing power?
- Transparency and Accountability: Can open-source AI architectures ensure that algorithms remain understandable and correctable?

The central question is not only whether an AI can provide protection but whether it can do so in harmony with human values—and who will guard this “Leviathan made of silicon”.

Risks and Pitfalls:

An AI world leader entails significant dangers:

- Lack of Transparency: Opaque, black-box algorithms breed mistrust and hinder democratic oversight. Without interpretable algorithms, arbitrariness and errors become likely.
- Manipulation Risk: AI can be weaponized to shape opinions. Social media algorithms have already demonstrated how misinformation can heighten polarization. In authoritarian hands, AI becomes a digital tool for suppressing dissent.
- Absence of Empathy: AI, driven by data rather than feelings, lacks understanding of individual suffering. Its decisions may seem cold and inhumane, devoid of emotional nuance.
- Social Division: Engagement-driven algorithms promote content that triggers strong emotions—often controversy and polarization. Users are trapped in echo chambers, encountering only like-minded perspectives.

A pertinent example is the functioning of social networks: Personalized feeds amplify polarizing political content, fostering radicalization. In the USA and Germany, such algorithmically driven conspiracy theories and misinformation campaigns have heightened social tensions. The risk intensifies when algorithms prioritize engagement over truth—spreading hate speech and disinformation. This underscores why robust ethical frameworks are essential should AI ever assume global leadership.

The EU as a Beacon of Ethical AI:

Given these risks, who should define the standards for ethical AI?
The European Union (EU) has the potential to lead, establishing clear, binding guidelines and frameworks:

- European Commission: Develops legal standards for ethics, data protection, and transparency.
- European Central Bank (ECB): Ensures ethical principles in AI-driven financial systems.
- European Ethics Council: Formulates moral guidelines for AI applications.
- Research Initiatives (e.g., ELLIS): Promotes European research into transparent and fair AI.
- Data Protection Authorities: Monitors compliance with the GDPR for AI systems.

The EU stands at a crossroads: It has the opportunity not only to lead technologically but also to set a global standard for responsible AI development.

Conclusion: Human, AI—or Both?

Natural intelligences (NI) have long demonstrated their collective inability to address global crises—climate change, pandemics, poverty, and resource depletion—despite technological advancements. Instead, humanity remains ensnared in geopolitical power struggles, ignoring real threats or even worsening them through short-term strategies.

Is it not time to reconsider the limits of our traditional governance models? Could a new form of leadership protect humanity not only from external threats but also from itself (Homo homini lupus est)? What if a guiding force—one free from short-term interests—was dedicated solely to humanity’s long-term welfare and justice?

And what if the next great social contract was not between humans alone but between humanity and AI—an act of reason, not surrender?

The Uncomfortable Question:
Will AI fail where humanity has failed—or become our greatest ally?
Will it repeat our mistakes—or save us from ourselves?

This is the pivotal question that prompts us to rethink the relationship between humanity and AI. Perhaps the answer lies in a bold alliance:

AI as a rational advisor, immune to fake news through a robust, source-based knowledge framework, and humanity as the moral compass.

Yet, one crucial question remains:
Under what conditions are we willing to entrust our sovereignty to AI?