The AI Action Summit in Paris, held from 10–11 February and aimed at advancing global efforts on artificial intelligence safety, revealed a familiar dynamic: powerful nations and corporations eager to harness AI’s economic potential while paying only lip service to meaningful oversight. The summit’s final statement was vague, focusing more on economic opportunities than on setting necessary safety standards. While previous AI gatherings had secured commitments to test and regulate new systems, this summit fell short, opting instead for aspirational language about making AI “trustworthy.”

The reluctance to prioritize safety over rapid development is deeply concerning. As nations race to dominate AI, historical lessons about the dangers of unchecked technological ambition are being ignored. This is not merely a question of industry growth or market competition—it is a question of ethics, responsibility, and our shared future. If history teaches us anything, it is that transformative technologies can have both miraculous and disastrous consequences, depending on how they are wielded.

As the contemporary Buddhist teacher Thanissara has observed, today’s AI obsession is part of a much older story—the human desire for transcendence, for mastery over nature, and, ultimately, for immortality. This desire has taken many forms throughout history. In ancient India, the Brahmanical priesthood sought liberation through ritual sacrifice, believing they could secure divine favor and eternal life. In medieval China, Daoist alchemists experimented with mercury elixirs, believing they could achieve physical immortality—only to die from their own concoctions.

Today’s “tech bros” have their own version of this quest. They envision a world where AI, biotechnology, and algorithms will free them from human limitations. They dream of digital consciousness uploads, life extension through genetic modification, and even escape to Mars, imagining themselves as an interplanetary elite. Thanissara writes:

Convinced that technology alone holds all solutions, these tech-bros envision a future free from government oversight or external accountability. Their utopia is one of radical individualism–designed exclusively for themselves. Their ambitions go beyond mastering Earth; they dream of evolving into a privileged interplanetary species, with Musk’s obsession of colonizing Mars as their launching point. (Substack)

From a Buddhist perspective, this quest is built on a fundamental misunderstanding—the illusion of permanence. The Buddha’s teaching of anitya (Skt. impermanence) reminds us that all conditioned phenomena, including human life and consciousness, are transient. No amount of technological intervention will change this basic truth. Instead of clinging to illusions of control, Buddhism invites us to accept and work with impermanence, cultivating wisdom and compassion rather than chasing fantasies of technological transcendence.

History is filled with examples of societies unleashing powerful technologies without fully understanding their consequences. The Mahavamsa, an ancient Sri Lankan chronicle, tells of King Dutthagamani, who waged war believing he was fulfilling a noble cause. Yet after securing victory, Dutthagamani was overcome with guilt, needing monastic intervention to ease his suffering. His story reflects a recurring pattern: the initial pursuit of power, the eventual reckoning with unintended consequences, and the struggle to justify past actions. Experiments with using contemporary AI applications to do trivial work such as grocery shopping have led to wild errors. While these may seem trivial, they are a small but telling warning. If AI can already behave unpredictably with something as simple as grocery shopping, what happens when these systems are deployed in law enforcement, healthcare, or financial markets? Already, disasters in the commercial deployment of AI are adding up—from McDonald’s aborted roll-out at drive-throughs to Air Canada paying out damages to a passenger misled by an AI chatbot in a sensitive time. (CIO)

The Buddha warned against blind confidence in external solutions. In the Kalama Sutta, he urged his followers to test ideas through experience and reason rather than accepting them blindly. AI development would benefit from this same spirit of cautious inquiry. Instead of rushing ahead, we should ask if we are truly in control of this technology? Have we tested its long-term impacts? What safeguards are in place if things go wrong? Without clear answers, reckless acceleration is not progress; it is folly.

Much of today’s AI debate is framed in binary terms: regulation versus innovation, safety versus progress. But this division is an illusion, a form of what Thanissara calls the “apartheid mindset”—a way of thinking that creates artificial separation where none is needed. (Substack) This mindset prevents us from recognizing what Buddhism calls samyak-drsti, or right view, which includes ethical responsibility toward all beings.

Buddhist philosophy offers a different approach: the Middle Path. Rather than viewing regulation as an obstacle to progress, we can see it as a necessary form of mindful restraint (sila). The monastic Vinaya code provides an instructive analogy. Established to guide the behavior of monks, the Vinaya was not meant to stifle practice but to ensure ethical integrity. Rules were introduced gradually, in response to real-world situations, to prevent harm and uphold the Dharma.

AI governance should follow a similar model. Instead of resisting oversight, developers and policymakers should recognize that ethical guidelines enhance trust and stability. Just as the Buddha’s monastic community flourished under the Vinaya, AI innovation will ultimately benefit from a clear ethical framework. The goal should not be unregulated technological dominance, but the responsible development of AI in service of humanity.

The AI Action Summit in Paris may have been a disappointment, but the next gathering in Kigali, Rwanda, offers a chance to take meaningful action. A Buddhist-inspired approach would emphasize wisdom, ethical responsibility, and a long-term perspective. Specifically, we must:

1. Ensure AI is guided by ethical commitments. Just as the five precepts guide Buddhist practice, AI development should adhere to core principles: non-harm, transparency, accountability, and fairness. This means moving beyond vague statements about “trustworthy AI” and implementing concrete safeguards.

2. Encourage international cooperation over competition. The first Buddhist councils, convened after the Buddha’s passing, brought diverse monastic traditions together to preserve the Dharma. AI governance should follow this example, fostering global collaboration rather than nationalistic rivalry.

3. Recognize that slowing down is not failure, it is wisdom. In Buddhist meditation, slowing down allows deeper insights to emerge. The same applies to AI. A mindful, deliberate approach is not anti-progress; it is wise progress. Governments should not wait for catastrophe before enacting regulations. Instead, they should take proactive steps now, ensuring that AI remains a tool for benefit rather than harm.

4. Establish clear thresholds for AI capabilities. When an AI system reaches certain milestones (in reasoning ability, decision-making power, or automation potential), it should trigger additional audits and oversight. This is not unlike the stages of Buddhist training, where deeper levels of practice require greater ethical responsibility.

5. Shift the narrative away from radical individualism. The tech elite’s vision of AI-driven transcendence reflects an ego-driven misunderstanding of human existence. A Buddhist approach emphasizes anatman (Skt. non-self)—the recognition that true liberation is found not in escaping suffering alone, but in realizing our interconnectedness with all beings. AI governance must move beyond the selfish ambitions of a few and prioritize the well-being of the many.

The future of AI should not be dictated by those who seek to dominate, control, or escape the limitations of human life. Instead, we can cultivate a vision rooted in pratityasamutpada—the principle of dependent origination, which teaches that all things arise in interconnection. This means recognizing that AI is not separate from human values, social structures, or ethical responsibilities.

Rather than waiting for disaster, we have an opportunity to act now, with wisdom, patience, and compassion. The Middle Path offers a way forward: one that balances innovation with responsibility, ambition with caution, and technology with ethical clarity. By embracing this approach, we can ensure that AI serves all beings—not just the privileged few, but the entire web of life.

See more

Commentary: Paris AI summit’s pinky promises aren’t enough to keep us safe (Channel News Asia)
12 famous AI disasters (CIO)
Techno-Fascism vs. Humanity: The War We Must Win (Substack)
Can A.I. Heal Our Souls? (The New York Times)

Related features from BDG

Building Bodhisattvas: Toward a Model of Powerful, Reliable, and Caring Intelligence
Consciousness, Attention, and Intelligent Technology: A Karmic Turning Point?
In a World of Human Ignorance, Can Artificial Intelligence Help?
Dharma, Perfect Knowledge, and Artificial Intelligence
Does Artificial Intelligence Have Buddha-nature?
Dharma and Artificial Intelligence: Further Considerations
The Rise of Artificial Intelligence and What it Means for Our Jobs

BDG Special Issue

Digital Dharma – Buddhism in a Changing World