Authoritarianism is the AI Bailout; But If AI Doesn't Need a Bailout, Does it Need Authoritarianism?
Researchers Detail How AI Systems Can Enable Authoritarianism
A new preprint study of authoritarianism-enabling AI presents another set of evidence of the gaps in safeguards, writes Tim Bernard.
The rise of AI sovereignty: Authoritarian technological imaginaries as a form of reflexive control
Recent literature increasingly examines generative artificial intelligence's (AI's) role in disinformation and propaganda as a key driver of digital authoritarianism. Yet, less attention has been paid to how authoritarian regimes may influence the global governance of AI itself. This essay addresses this gap by analysing the impact of authoritarian technological imaginaries, focusing on the rise of ‘AI sovereignty’ as a central concept shaping global AI governance. It adopts a conceptual framework that combines the notion of imaginaries with the concept of reflexive control, originating in Soviet strategic thought and referring to influencing an adversary's perceptions so they act in ways aligned with the initiator's goals, to study authoritarian diffusion and the global politics of AI. Through an examination of public statements by the Russian president, the study shows how Russia constructs an AI imaginary that extends Cold War logics of nuclear competition into the digital era, framing AI as a matter of security and survival rather than ethics or rights. Drawing on the Russian case, the analysis identifies three frames that underpin the authoritarian AI imaginary: AI as a tool for power and domination; Western AI as a cultural threat; and AI as a guarantor of state efficiency. The article argues that such imaginaries shape the cognitive environment of global policy debates, promoting sovereignty-centred and securitised approaches to AI governance. It suggests that recognising the role of reflexive control in authoritarian diffusion helps distinguish legitimate Global South concerns from authoritarian influence and supports more inclusive and resilient models of AI governance.
The rise of AI sovereignty: Authoritarian technological imaginaries as a form of reflexive control
Recent literature increasingly examines generative artificial intelligence's (AI's) role in disinformation and propaganda as a key driver of digital authoritarianism. Yet, less attention has been paid to how authoritarian regimes may influence the global governance of AI itself. This essay addresses this gap by analysing the impact of authoritarian technological imaginaries, focusing on the rise of ‘AI sovereignty’ as a central concept shaping global AI governance. It adopts a conceptual framework that combines the notion of imaginaries with the concept of reflexive control, originating in Soviet strategic thought and referring to influencing an adversary's perceptions so they act in ways aligned with the initiator's goals, to study authoritarian diffusion and the global politics of AI. Through an examination of public statements by the Russian president, the study shows how Russia constructs an AI imaginary that extends Cold War logics of nuclear competition into the digital era, framing AI as a matter of security and survival rather than ethics or rights. Drawing on the Russian case, the analysis identifies three frames that underpin the authoritarian AI imaginary: AI as a tool for power and domination; Western AI as a cultural threat; and AI as a guarantor of state efficiency. The article argues that such imaginaries shape the cognitive environment of global policy debates, promoting sovereignty-centred and securitised approaches to AI governance. It suggests that recognising the role of reflexive control in authoritarian diffusion helps distinguish legitimate Global South concerns from authoritarian influence and supports more inclusive and resilient models of AI governance.
AI Bros Wanted Trump. Now They Learn What Happens When You Tell Him No.
Last year, in Fascism For First Time Founders, I warned the tech industry what happens when you cozy up to authoritarians. As I wrote then: Innovation requires trust. Not just between individuals, …
Can AI Be Governed? Only If We Build Normatively Competent AI
Hadfield's discussion brings the idea of AI governance back to the core idea of steering the behavior of an AI system. As she notes, this not only involves technical questions about how AI systems ar...
We All Hate AI, but if You’re Poor, It Can Really Ruin Your Life
Debt collection. Parole decisions. Oversight of public services. It’s all being outsourced to AI, with terrible consequences for poor people.
Do AI Risks Require Extraordinary Government Intervention?
Let’s not skip the hard work of AI governance
How AI Destroys Institutions
Civic institutions—the rule of law, universities, and a free press—are the backbone of democratic life. They are the mechanisms through which complex societies encourage cooperation and stability, while also adapting to changing circumstances. The real superpower of institutions is their ability to evolve and adapt within a hierarchy
The AI Buildout and the Material Trap
Why Strategic Necessity, Physical Bottlenecks, and Unsettled Economics Are Forcing Capital into a Constrained System
How AI Destroys Institutions
Civic institutions—like the rule of law, higher education, and a free press—are the backbone of democratic life. They are the mechanisms through which complex s
How Shifting Responsibility for AI Harms Undermines Democratic Accountability | TechPolicy.Press
The moralization of individual AI use deflects responsibility away from powerful actors like corporations and governments, Suvradip Maitra and others write.
Where AI Regulation Stands Today
The White House has released a National Artificial Intelligence Legislative Framework and new executive orders aiming to establish a single, nationwide standard for AI regulation...
Palantir's social media manifesto is a blueprint for technofascism
The surveillance firm’s viral X post calls for hard power, conscription and the end of pluralism. AI expert and academic Mark Coeckelbergh on what happens when technology becomes the gateway to authoritarianism
From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design
AI-enabled authoritarianism is not confined to autocracies. In this paper, we provide greater transparency by investigating and mapping the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China. By drawing on an extensive range of sources (academic publications, investigative research reports, third-party evaluations, media interviews, government procurement notices), we conduct a systematic, qualitative comparison across systems to identify the critical technical and operational features that enable authoritarianism within their respective political contexts. We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment, regulatory gaps that fail to deter misuse, weak user compliance that nullifies human oversight mechanisms, and the encoding of protected group traits that identify members of vulnerable populations. We find that these features are present across systems deployed in autocratic and democratic regimes, albeit in varying configurations. We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps: centralized systems directed by executive authorities, particularly within security and military institutions, are often not subjected to formal oversight mechanisms, while fragmented systems diffuse accountability between stakeholders, paving the way for entrenchment. These findings reveal that AI-enabled authoritarianism is distributed, resulting from design and operational choices made by developers, administrators, and users alike. We conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to mitigate these risks.
From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design
AI-enabled authoritarianism is not confined to autocracies. In this paper, we provide greater transparency by investigating and mapping the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China. By drawing on an extensive range of sources (academic publications, investigative research reports, third-party evaluations, media interviews, government procurement notices), we conduct a systematic, qualitative comparison across systems to identify the critical technical and operational features that enable authoritarianism within their respective political contexts. We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment, regulatory gaps that fail to deter misuse, weak user compliance that nullifies human oversight mechanisms, and the encoding of protected group traits that identify members of vulnerable populations. We find that these features are present across systems deployed in autocratic and democratic regimes, albeit in varying configurations. We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps: centralized systems directed by executive authorities, particularly within security and military institutions, are often not subjected to formal oversight mechanisms, while fragmented systems diffuse accountability between stakeholders, paving the way for entrenchment. These findings reveal that AI-enabled authoritarianism is distributed, resulting from design and operational choices made by developers, administrators, and users alike. We conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to mitigate these risks.
