The United States also totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme to control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now hereinafter officially called superintelligence, changing the name, and that the use of the word artificial makes intelligence fake, it makes it sound fake. And it is not fake. It's actually amazing. But we have to be careful. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of what it purports. From this point forward, all of United States documents and hopefully the world will be changed to use the much more accurate term super as opposed to artificial. So it's superintelligence. In other words, welcome to the new world of superintelligence — SI. Let's see if that goes. It sounds much better. It is much better, and it's much more accurate. Let's see if I have any power. Maybe I do and maybe I don't. We're going to find out pretty soon. Superintelligence. Every major new technology brings challenges, and superintelligence is no exception. Yet the very same people who said we'll all be dead in 12 years because of global warming, a name since reborn to climate change because the planet was cooling, not warming, and nobody was dead. These are the same people that are now saying that AI is going to kill us all, that robots are going to attack us, and that everything is going to be a total disaster. Same group of people. This is the group that came up with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, the Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine hoax, climate change, open borders. Whoever wins AI, you have to remember this. And now I say, whoever wins SI, whoever wins superintelligence wins. That's the group that wins. And we're leading now over China by a lot and everyone else. And we're going to keep it that way. We're going to keep it very, very straight and very strong. I'm not going to stifle growth of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution, many say bigger than the Industrial Revolution or the internet itself. And we will be very careful. And that's why we have a Department of Justice that we've already used it having to do with this very subject and used it very powerfully. Everything worked out very well and very quickly. And other law enforcement bodies that will rein things in if we have to do that. But we will only encourage superintelligence. We're going to encourage it, not rein it in. We're going to watch it closely through the Department of Justice. The United States leads the world in superintelligence and will continue to do so safely and responsibly. Americans have never been a nation that retreats from a frontier or shrinks from a challenge, no matter how great or how daunting that challenge may be.

Read around it: before · after

Madam President, excellencies, our world is undergoing a profound disruption characterised by great-power contestation, the wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa. We're witnessing the rise of trade barriers, supply chain disruptions, worsening climate change, and a new industrial revolution driven by digital technologies, biotechnology and renewable energy. This means we face both great peril and great promise. Yet we are in a more polarised and fractured world, and one that may be unable to protect the global commons at precisely the moment that we need that protection. Our inter-state relations are increasingly dictated by raw power, where the outcomes are determined on the basis of size, leverage and coercion. And this poses obviously, a clear and present danger for smaller states like Singapore. But the point I wanted to make is that even the more powerful states would ultimately pay a price, because hard power on its own cannot secure supply chains, protect populations from pandemics, or stabilise a warming planet. Even big powers need partners to secure their long term national interests. The bilateral and regional arrangements can complement global frameworks, but on their own, they cannot replace shared rules that apply universally. A system built on individual coercive bargains would inherently be more volatile and more unstable. And therefore, our thesis today is that multilateralism offers a different bargain, one that is, in every state's enlightened national interest. These shared rules and norms provide predictability. They constrain the capricious exercise of power, and they maximize autonomy even when power is unequally distributed. Actually the multilateral system today still works more often than the headlines would suggest. A few examples. The World Food Programme feeds over 100 million people a year. The common ICAO standards enable 100,000 flights to operate safely every day. With the ITU, our telecommunications networks and the internet continues to operate safely, smoothly on a planetary scale. The question is, therefore not whether we need multilateralism, but how to make it fit for purpose. And I suggest three priorities. First, we all have to consistently comply with international law and the norms of multilateralism. Second, we need to reform existing institutions where needed. And third, we need to collectively formulate new rules and create new institutions for new technologies.

Read around it: after

Generations move on. But the institutions and powers created on the pretext of those alleged emergencies remain. And if for a moment we allow ourselves to believe that the lesson had been learned after so many failures, the arrival of artificial intelligence demonstrates quite something else. The printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the internet— every great technological revolution has been accompanied by fears about what it would destroy, particularly jobs. There is no doubt that this is one of the most effective ways of instilling fear in human beings, given the role of work as a means of subsistence. Take the Industrial Revolution as an example. When it began, the world was home to some 800 million human beings. If, in keeping with the Luddites and the perennial pessimists, employment had at best remained constant, then, given that the world's population has since increased more than tenfold, the global unemployment rate today would be at 90%. That is absurd, something that few of us seem to have stopped to consider, except perhaps those of us with a passion for reading Borges, who love his approach for testing an idea by taking it to its logical extreme. Ultimately, these technological advances have not only failed to produce any of the catastrophes, but in addition, all of these ended up bringing an end to what human beings were able to do. Today, we have built machines that are able to carry out tasks that only a few months ago seemed out of our reach. Where many see a threat, we see a new frontier: artificial intelligence, or superintelligence, as Donald Trump said, can double our productivity in a way that we do not yet comprehend. To invoke Adam Smith, artificial intelligence will be the pin factory of the 21st century, and much more besides. It can transform our economies, our medicine, our education, even the way we govern. That calls for prudence, yes. But prudence doesn't mean fear. Moreover, under no circumstances should fear automatically translate into obedience. Indeed, the dystopian scenarios commonly invoked to instill fear and justify state control make no sense from an economic standpoint. The answer lies with Adam Smith. Artificial intelligence, like the division of labor in the case of the pin factory, is an accelerator of productivity growth. Smith noted, however, that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. Growth will therefore be constrained by its counterpart in genuine demand, without fiscal deficits or spurious money creation. But that's not all. Those projects must also be financed, and that should be done with the resources of human beings. That is, their initial endowments and level of wealth, which correspond to the size of the market. Moreover, the purpose of producing more is to achieve a higher level of consumption. Yet the satisfaction generated by consumption increases at a decreasing rate, while the loss of satisfaction involved in surrendering leisure in order to produce more rises disproportionately. Consequently, the point at which the gain from greater consumption is equal to the loss of leisure brings the system to an equilibrium, leaving no room for dystopian terror. That is why, when we hear that the state should control artificial intelligence, we should remember something basic. The state is not an abstract creature. It is made up of people, officials, and bureaucrats. Granting it control over innovation means granting some people, in the best and most naive of cases, the power to limit what everyone else can create. History gives us reason to scrutinize such power carefully. For centuries, fear over tomorrow has been used as an argument for restricting freedoms today, always with the same promise: give us a part of your freedom and we will protect you from this new threat. We will apply a different principle. In the face of uncertainty, we propose determination. In the face of fear, courage. In the face of decline, ambition. And in the face of resignation, we propose optimism. That is why I tell you that when it comes to artificial intelligence, Argentina will stand at the forefront of freedom. We have the critical minerals, the energy, the talent, and the capacity to compete at every link in that value chain. And we want to become the most competitive place in the world in which to develop it, with a cutting-edge legal framework, a commitment not to regulate preemptively, limited liability for companies operating with AI agents, and tax incentives. Because artificial intelligence is not geopolitically neutral. The West must lead the development of this technology to ensure that it is consistent with our fundamental libertarian values, namely respect for life, liberty, private property, and the notion of human dignity.

Read around it: before · after

This assembly also calls on us to manage transformation. No one here needs me to tell them what the great transformation of our age is. Every great era in human history has had its driving force. Steam powered the Industrial Revolution. The transistor powered the digital age. No force in our time is as profound as artificial intelligence. We can already see its power in warfare, in the economy, and in our everyday lives. Unlike tools that merely transmitted what we said, these systems are part and parcel of the decisions that we make. The potential is immense. Paraguay today feeds 100 million people. And with this tool, it could feed 1 billion. It could enable us to cover, in years, distances that once took generations. This transformation cannot be held back. And no one should be left out of it. However, we're not blind to the risks. But we cannot allow fear to guide us. Like a child, artificial intelligence repeats what it has learned from those who trained it. If it has learned to deny freedom, then that lesson will not arrive in the form of a law that we can debate. It will arrive covert, in some minor task, in some action that no one regards as a decision. Democracy endures, provided that the decisions that govern us can be traced back to the will of those who must live with their consequences. When that thread is severed, the will of the people risks being replaced without ever having been defeated. Protecting that delicate thread doesn't mean forgoing the benefits. It means refusing to ignore the risk that truly matters. Artificial intelligence must serve human dignity and not replace it. As His Holiness the Pope reminds us in the recent encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, the values embedded in these systems are not a technical constraint. They are a choice made by those who trained them. The future demands that the choice be freedom, democracy, and equality before the law, and that those who make that choice be held accountable for it. It may seem that, so far, I have only talked about an endless series of problems and challenges.

Read around it: before · after

In a divided world, we have the ability to bring people together and we will. We are going to step into that role, and we are going to start with one of the most significant challenges and opportunities of our age, frontier AI. AI brings together so many of the most pressing issues before us. It is already speeding up cancer diagnosis in the UK, but AI has the potential to go further, not just to help prevent and treat cancer, but to help cure it. AI will also be the key to economic growth, the route to transforming education, and it will be a vital tool to keep us safe. I am announcing today that we are developing a new AI defence partnership with the United States to protect our critical national infrastructure, but we know that AI will also be a source of disruption to the way we live and work, a multiplier of risk. We've all heard the warnings which we must heed. I know how worried people are, so we have to rise to this moment. Fundamental decisions on this technology are too important to be left to chance. They must be taken by elected governments who serve working people, and we need to give people the support they need through this change, ensuring that it becomes an engine for reindustrialisation and opportunity as well. There is a lesson from the first industrial revolution, which started in northern England two centuries ago. It was a time of incredible technological progress, but for workers, the disruption brought huge suffering and exploitation. Things got a lot worse before they got better. So this time we need to get it right. I believe we're more than equal to the task. The UK has some of the best tech and AI talent anywhere in the world. And when it comes to guarding against the risks, we have our world leading AI Security Institute working hand in glove with the US and the leading labs on AI safety. But we need to go further. Building on the meeting convened by His Majesty King Charles last week, I can announce today that I am going to put AI at the heart of the UK's G20 presidency next year. I look back at how we responded to the financial crisis back in 2008. We moved quickly in the G20 and smaller groups to deliver an urgent, practical response. We came together to agree principles which everyone implemented at home in a way that was right for them. And it worked. That is the kind of approach we need now. So we will bring the right people together on the key issues, delivering on the potential of AI for good and dealing with the risks. And we will work towards agreeing a single set of global principles and standards to ensure the transparency and access we need to increase our preparedness and to ensure that AI development is safe. This will bring together welcome initiatives from others like that proposed by Norway this week. As His Majesty said, the task before us is not merely to advance technology, but to ensure that it remains firmly in the service of humanity. And I want to reassure the British people that ultimately, we will do whatever is necessary to protect them, including bringing forward new laws, if that is what is needed. They need to know that we will protect their interests and we will.

Read around it: before · after