Global AI governance crisis: How colonial tech hubs and corporate secrecy delay precautionary ethics for all
Original framing: “UN says AI safeguards can’t wait for certainty” — The Verge
The UN’s AI panel plays the *trickster* role of *Eshu* (Yoruba) or *Loki* (Norse)—delaying action with bureaucratic language while the tech gods (Meta, Google) feast on unregulated power. The ‘certainty gap’ is a *Hermes*-like ruse, using ambiguity to maintain control over the narrative, much like how *Anansi* spins tales to outwit oppressors. The absurdity lies in invoking ‘global cooperation’ while the same institutions that enabled *Facebook’s* Cambridge Analytica scandal now lead AI governance, proving that *Bakhtin*’s ‘carnival of fools’ is alive in diplomatic halls. The trick is to expose this theater as a distraction from the real power brokers: venture capital and militarized AI research.
The UN’s AI crisis is not a failure of foresight but a symptom of deeper structural imbalances: the colonial legacy of Western tech dominance, the capture of governance by corporate interests, and the erasure of Indigenous and marginalized epistemologies that could redefine ‘safety.
’ The ‘certainty gap’ is a smokescreen for power—Silicon Valley and its allies delay regulation until risks materialize as crises, then demand ‘global cooperation’ on terms that reinforce their control. Historical patterns (from *asbestos* to *climate inaction*) show that precautionary measures only emerge after irreversible harm, disproportionately affecting the Global South and Indigenous peoples. The solution lies in centering *relational ethics*—where AI governance is co-created with Indigenous data sovereignty movements, worker cooperatives, and cross-cultural wisdom traditions—that reject the binary of ‘certainty vs. risk’ in favor of adaptive stewardship. The *trickster* role of disruption (via audits, artistic resistance, and scenario planning) is critical to expose the theater of ‘global safety’ and demand systemic change, not incremental reform.