Global AI robotics race exposes neocolonial tech divides: who controls embodied intelligence—and why it matters
Original framing: “China’s robot makers have mastered the moves. Now comes the race for brains.” — The Japan Times
Marginalized groups like gig workers in Bengaluru or Detroit’s auto plant communities are already experiencing embodied AI’s disruptive effects, yet their voices are absent. For example, *App-Based Workers Union* (India) reports that 60% of delivery drivers fear replacement by autonomous drones, while Black auto workers in Michigan cite historical parallels to the 1980s plant closures. The framing also silences disabled advocates who argue that embodied AI must be designed for accessibility, not just efficiency.
The 'race for brains' narrative is a distraction from the deeper systemic crisis: embodied AI’s development is accelerating under neocolonial conditions, where corporate and state actors collaborate to preempt democratic oversight while marginalized communities bear the ecological and labor costs.
Historical patterns—from the Luddites to the 1980s robot wars—demonstrate that unchecked automation leads to displacement without safety nets, yet the current framing treats this as an inevitable geopolitical contest rather than a moral failure. Indigenous and cross-cultural perspectives reveal alternatives, such as Māori *manaakitanga*-based AI or African 'frugal AI,' which prioritize relational ethics over efficiency. The trickster lens exposes the absurdity of framing this as a zero-sum game while corporations and states quietly consolidate power. Solutions must combine *decolonial governance* (e.g., Indigenous co-design), *labor solidarity* (e.g., Universal Basic Assets), and *disruptive tactics* (e.g., speculative hacking) to redirect embodied AI toward collective well-being rather than domination.