On July 14, the Valdai Discussion Club hosted a discussion in Moscow titled “Ethical Challenges in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”. Moderator Anton Bespalov opened by noting that while this issue seemed like a distant prospect just a decade ago, it is now clear that the future has arrived far sooner than anticipated.
It was once believed that humanity would one day grapple with questions related to the advent of artificial intelligence collectively. However, that shared response has not materialised. In recent years, the leaders of technology companies have been actively reflecting on the ongoing transformations, hoping to draft new global rules. Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, served as a distinctive counterpoint from traditional institutions when it came to assessing these tech-driven visions.
Evgeny Kuznetsov, a futurologist and CEO of the Digital Evolution Ventures Fund, placed the current transformations in a historical perspective. He stressed that human social development follows cyclical patterns. In his view, we are now living through a transitional phase reminiscent of the early Industrial Revolution, when certain countries began to develop at an accelerated pace, widening the wealth gap between the West and the rest of the world. Although global inequality is currently decreasing, there is strong reason to believe that a new phase of accelerated, uneven development is beginning. The fundamental question, Kuznetsov argues, is who will ultimately reap the benefits of technological progress. Access to technological advantages has thus become not merely an economic issue, but a matter of global fairness. He expressed hope that the current competitive phase would prove temporary, adding that the common challenges facing humanity are too serious to be side-lined.
Xue Ying, a research fellow at the Xinhua Institute, contends that the core ethical challenge lies in creating a “just environment” that enables all of humanity to access artificial intelligence and allows all countries to benefit from modern digital infrastructure. Discoveries of such magnitude belong to the entire world and should not be controlled by monopolistic players that deny other nations access. These are issues that humanity as a whole must resolve, she believes. Xue Ying also outlined China’s approach to the more specific ethical dilemmas associated with AI, emphasising the country’s substantial regulatory efforts—both in legislation and in fostering self-regulation among large corporations, the media, and society at large.
Arvind Gupta, CEO and co-founder of the Digital India Foundation, echoes this concern about limited AI accessibility: will AI create societies entirely shaped by it, which will exist alongside those left without it? The development of these systems draws on the cumulative cognitive intelligence of the entire world, yet they ultimately serve individual countries and communities rather than humanity as a whole. A second major problem, in his view, is the outsized role of the large tech companies that dominate the digital market. The ideologies, biases, and opinions circulating within these companies permeate artificial intelligence, giving rise to various dangers—including the use of AI to manipulate public opinion, disseminate propaganda, and, more broadly, enable weaponisation. India is striving to counter the weaponisation of artificial intelligence, but Gupta asserts that Big Tech has refused to cooperate.
Ekaterina Tikhomirova, a professor in the Department of Philosophy, Ontology, and Theory of Knowledge at MEPhI, urged that discussions on AI ethics should not lose sight of ethics as a philosophical discipline with its own conceptual framework, and a recognition of diverse moral ontologies. She warned against “terminological smuggling”—the use of terms and concepts without clarifying their meanings—which creates an illusion that problems have been resolved. As a result, philosophical ethics is reduced to mere law and effectively undermined. Tikhomirova further explored the ethical and political dimensions of aesthetic restrictions imposed on AI-generated visual content. “Ethical” filters designed to protect users from potentially traumatising imagery, she argues, strip artistic products of the binary oppositions essential to profound aesthetic experience. The result is a diluted, sanitised outcome with censored meanings, which, in her view, ultimately dehumanises the individual.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
