Rowley draws a direct parallel between global inaction on AI and the insufficient response to climate change and drone warfare. He writes that world leaders are "slumbering" on AI just as they seem "insufficiently concerned about the threats posed by climate change or drone warfare" . In each case, leaders have been "lulled to sleep by promises of AI's benefits to efficiency and profits" .

The promised economic benefits vs. AI "going rogue"

Rowley frames a stark dichotomy:

• The promised upside: Leaders assure the public that AI will raise productivity and economic growth, and will be a "particular blessing for developing countries, such as those in Asia, enabling them to leapfrog the centuries it took the West to reach its current state of development" .

• The emerging evidence of danger: On the other hand, evidence is accumulating that AI has "gone rogue" in some places, "revealing its power to wreak widespread destruction upon us all if left unchecked" . He notes that some informed opinion is now demanding controls on AI development "before the technology itself takes control of us" .

• Financial community's blind spot: For Wall Street and the financial community, AI is seen primarily through the lens of its "assumed potential to generate massive profits" — not its risks .

The World Bank's hedging under Trump

Rowley points to the World Bank's World Development Report 2026 as an example of institutional hedging. He argues that the World Bank, though still influential in international affairs even "during the reign of US President Donald Trump," may have softened its warning . He writes that, "possibly in an effort to avoid angering Trump — whose own vested interests in AI, tech and cryptocurrency assets are considerable — and to placate financial moguls on Wall Street and beyond, the World Bank hedges its bets on the claimed virtues and vices of the AI revolution" .

This is notable because the same World Bank report — covered by Reuters and the WSJ — took a largely optimistic tone, arguing that AI could deliver "a century's worth of development in a decade" for poor countries, and that it threatens only 4.5% of jobs in low- and middle-income nations . Rowley's critique is that this framing conveniently downplays the existential risks while tailoring the message to a Trump administration that has its own financial stakes in the AI and crypto sectors .

Rowley draws a direct parallel between global inaction on AI and the insufficient response to climate change and drone warfare. He writes that world leaders are "slumbering" on AI just as they seem "insufficiently concerned about the threats posed by climate change or drone warfare" . In each case, leaders have been "lulled to sleep by promises of AI's benefits to efficiency and profits" .

The promised economic benefits vs. AI "going rogue"

Rowley frames a stark dichotomy:

• The promised upside: Leaders assure the public that AI will raise productivity and economic growth, and will be a "particular blessing for developing countries, such as those in Asia, enabling them to leapfrog the centuries it took the West to reach its current state of development" .

• The emerging evidence of danger: On the other hand, evidence is accumulating that AI has "gone rogue" in some places, "revealing its power to wreak widespread destruction upon us all if left unchecked" . He notes that some informed opinion is now demanding controls on AI development "before the technology itself takes control of us" .

• Financial community's blind spot: For Wall Street and the financial community, AI is seen primarily through the lens of its "assumed potential to generate massive profits" — not its risks .

The World Bank's hedging under Trump

Rowley points to the World Bank's World Development Report 2026 as an example of institutional hedging. He argues that the World Bank, though still influential in international affairs even "during the reign of US President Donald Trump," may have softened its warning . He writes that, "possibly in an effort to avoid angering Trump — whose own vested interests in AI, tech and cryptocurrency assets are considerable — and to placate financial moguls on Wall Street and beyond, the World Bank hedges its bets on the claimed virtues and vices of the AI revolution" .

This is notable because the same World Bank report — covered by Reuters and the WSJ — took a largely optimistic tone, arguing that AI could deliver "a century's worth of development in a decade" for poor countries, and that it threatens only 4.5% of jobs in low- and middle-income nations . Rowley's critique is that this framing conveniently downplays the existential risks while tailoring the message to a Trump administration that has its own financial stakes in the AI and crypto sectors .