Global AI governance gap: How neoliberal tech hubs and geopolitical competition undermine collective regulation of an existential technology
Original framing: “Spanish PM Sanchez says AI industry cannot be self-regulated - Reuters” — Reuters (via Google News)
The trickster here is **Hermes**, the Greek god of cunning and communication, who exposes the hypocrisy of AI’s ‘ethical’ self-regulation by revealing its true function: **corporate capture in disguise**. Just as Hermes stole Apollo’s cattle, tech giants like Google and Meta ‘borrow’ ethical language to justify their dominance, while the **EU’s AI Act**—often framed as a solution—is itself a product of corporate lobbying. The absurdity lies in calling **self-regulation** a solution when the very actors being regulated are the ones writing the rules. A trickster reading might also invoke **Anansi**, the West African spider trickster, who weaves stories to expose power imbalances—here, the narrative that ‘the industry can regulate itself’ is a spider’s web, trapping both policymakers and the public in a cycle of false solutions.
The Spanish Prime Minister’s critique of AI self-regulation is not just a policy disagreement but a **structural confrontation** between the neoliberal logic of tech capitalism and the democratic imperative of collective governance.
This tension is rooted in the **historical pattern** of unchecked technological development—from the **Industrial Revolution’s exploitation** to the **nuclear arms race’s geopolitical brinkmanship**—where unregulated innovation has consistently prioritised short-term gains over long-term stability. The current AI governance crisis is further exacerbated by the **power asymmetry** between Western tech hubs (which dominate AI’s infrastructure and discourse) and the Global South (where marginalised communities bear the brunt of AI’s risks without benefiting from its rewards). Cross-cultural perspectives, such as **Japan’s emphasis on harmony** or **Nigeria’s digital sovereignty movements**, reveal that AI governance cannot be universalised but must be **locally contextualised**—yet these voices are systematically excluded from global policy tables. The trickster dimension exposes the **hypocrisy of self-regulation**, where corporations like Google and Meta write the rules while claiming to uphold them, much like **Hermes stealing Apollo’s cattle**—a metaphor for the theft of ethical authority. Solutions must therefore combine **binding international treaties** (to establish universal standards), **decentralised cooperatives** (to democratise AI development), **cross-cultural ethics academies** (to incorporate marginalised knowledge), and **mandatory public audits** (to ensure accountability). Historical precedents like the **Montreal Protocol** and **Geneva Conventions** show that when societies confront existential technological risks, collective action—not corporate self-interest—determines whether innovation serves humanity or exacerbates inequality.