Distinctiveness in front of plaster cast Those who knew spoke, those who spoke did not hear Two years ago I began my speeches on "Challenges and risks of reshaping the world and people for digital" [1] with a slide with a quote from "Treatise on the Way and the Good Power" by Lao Tzu: "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know". Those who had full access to what was happening on the frontier of artificial intelligence (managers and leading experts of companies that developed the most advanced models) then mostly kept silent or limited themselves to vague predictions. And the public field was filled with the opinions of people who are far from border laboratories and do not know information from closed sources. In 2025, those in the know spoke, and in 2026 the leaders of OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind began to speak the truth regardless of "political correctness": the uniqueness of AI has already begun, and in the next decade AI will radically change the world. But in that 2026, the topic of artificial intelligence jumped to the top of the hype and was heard from every iron. Philosophers and biologists, physicists and chemists, psychologists and political scientists, economists and financiers - people with decent reputations in their fields, but far from frontier laboratories like public commentators of recent years, began to share their assessments and predictions in detail. As a result, expert scissors between those who have and those who do not have complete information have split to the extreme. This polarizes public discourse and the opinions/actions of politicians, and with the current uncertainty and speed of change in AI, it threatens wrong, even catastrophic, decisions. Here are two recent typical examples.

Distinctiveness in front of plaster cast Those who knew spoke, those who spoke did not hear Two years ago I began my speeches on "Challenges and risks of reshaping the world and people for digital" [1] with a slide with a quote from "Treatise on the Way and the Good Power" by Lao Tzu: "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know". Those who had full access to what was happening on the frontier of artificial intelligence (managers and leading experts of companies that developed the most advanced models) then mostly kept silent or limited themselves to vague predictions. And the public field was filled with the opinions of people who are far from border laboratories and do not know information from closed sources. In 2025, those in the know spoke, and in 2026 the leaders of OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind began to speak the truth regardless of "political correctness": the uniqueness of AI has already begun, and in the next decade AI will radically change the world. But in that 2026, the topic of artificial intelligence jumped to the top of the hype and was heard from every iron. Philosophers and biologists, physicists and chemists, psychologists and political scientists, economists and financiers - people with decent reputations in their fields, but far from frontier laboratories like public commentators of recent years, began to share their assessments and predictions in detail. As a result, expert scissors between those who have and those who do not have complete information have split to the extreme. This polarizes public discourse and the opinions/actions of politicians, and with the current uncertainty and speed of change in AI, it threatens wrong, even catastrophic, decisions. Here are two recent typical examples.

The first is a lecture by Anthropic founder Jack Clark, "Inside the Event Horizon: Why Everyone Should Take AI Progress Seriously," given on October 17 in Bangkok at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This is a lecture by the Per Jacobson Foundation - one of the most prestigious platforms of the global financial elite, from which central bankers and leading economists traditionally speak.