In an individual or group blog post, investigate how a particular industry/sector in the Middle East may be impacted by AI and automation in the workforce. What opportunities and risks exist?
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Victoria Mummelthei (30. April 2024). ai and the Middle East, assignment complementing chapter “Labor” (deadline May 10). Keine Disziplin – No Discipline. Abgerufen am 27. März 2025 von https://doi.org/10.58079/13jqk
One of the most significant risks of AI and automation is job displacement. Many traditional roles, particularly those involving routine and manual tasks, may become obsolete, potentially leading to unemployment and social unrest if not managed properly. Yet, some argue that job replacement may not pose a severe problem. For instance, in Istanbul’s Zeytinburnu district, many Afghan migrants have found work in the textile industry post-Taliban takeover. This sector, which does not require skilled labor, employs migrants under harsh conditions, highlighting a persistent demand for low-wage, low-skill jobs despite technological advancements. This example underscores the notion that every technological advancement brings its own set of opportunities and challenges in different sectors.
In addition to this, I’d like to share my personal experience. I worked as an e-bike delivery driver in Berlin for almost seven months. During this time, I witnessed the possible negative, dystopian outcomes that AI can bring to the workplace. Having a GPS on your arm, tracking your every move every second, and receiving constant notifications, it was a way to increase efficiency, but it felt dehumanizing. The company I worked for was funded by an investment company from Abu Dhabi, essentially using AI to maximize worker efficiency. In the context of Middle Eastern regimes, AI could create even harsher and more inhumane working conditions for laborers. This personal experience illustrates how AI, while offering efficiency, can also lead to severe worker exploitation if not properly regulated.
Using artificial intelligence, governments and companies can keep detailed records of migrant workers, such as their work history, behavior, and even biometric data. Such information could be used to monitor and control these workers more effectively, preventing them from protesting or walking off the job without serious consequences. The integration of artificial intelligence and automation in the construction industry in the Middle East, which commonly employs immigrants, presents a complex set of concerns. While such practices may increase productivity and security for the host country, they can worsen the harsh conditions and limited freedoms that migrant workers often face. AI therefore increases surveillance and control of these workers, while making it easier for companies to continue exploitative practices.
The stakes and benefits of incorporating automation into the workforce cannot be generalized as a whole in regard to the Middle East. Each nation-state holds its own prerogatives for AI, whether it be for militia means, economic value, surveillance, comfort, or national strategies. For the sake of this response, there will be a focus on the statistics gathered from 6 countries in the Middle East that have taken the greatest embrace of AI technologies within the workforce; those countries are Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Egypt. Countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia have become pillars of AI endorsers in the region, hosting AI conferences and investing in its technology throughout their nations’ infrastructure (Pereira & Ross, 2024). Automation in the workforce does bring forth benefits such as economic value in wage increases, occupational opportunities within the field of AI development, and greater comforts and productivity in sectors that require more physical labor. However, these benefits are exclusive to a certain class and demographic of people, the issue at hand remains “the link between displacement potential by automation and low-to-medium levels of education and experience” (Moore, 2018). Those most vulnerable to automation in the workforce are people; with only a high school diploma and expat workers in fields where limited human interaction is needed (Moore, 2018). What seems to be dismissed is the fine line between AI systems and process automation with human collaboration. As Crawford notes in their chapter of labor “this collaboration is not fairly negotiated” (Crawford, p.58) and oftentimes workers are rarely given the opportunity to opt out of choice to work with the algorithmic systems. As AI driven incentives begin to grow in these 6 regions, stakes are high for those most vulnerable for those of low-socioeconomic standings at the hand of automation displacement. Ultimately the concern will be the very lack of concern for the lower-class civilians.
Aside from the 6 nations analyzed in this response, I do remain curious on the interstate on of automation in further regions in the Middle East, specifically with how it will affect the workforce surrounding arms and militia. As the Arms Race continues in the region, does AI provide more occupational opportunities to those in the sect of militia, law enforcement, or weapons manufacturers. This is another key thing to look out for with the embrace of AI as a whole.
Work Cited
Crawford, K. (2022). Atlas of AI. Yale University Press.
Pereira, B., & Ross, R. (2024, May 2). Is the Middle East the next Silicon Valley for ai?. CIO. https://www.cio.inc/the-middle-east-next-silicon-valley-for-ai-a-24996
Moore, J. P. aus dem, Chandran, V., & Schubert, J. (2018, April 24). Are Middle East workers ready for the impact of automation?. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/middle-east-and-africa/are-middle-east-workers-ready-for-the-impact-of-automation
The war industry, an industry whose importance has been increasing more and more with the new wars and conflicts in the ‘market’, has developed itself regarding its technological innovation over the last decades. Turkey, comprising NATO’s second-largest army, has made a name for itself in this industry with an invention that not only played a decisive role in the Karabakh war between Azerbaijan and Armenia but is also still being used in Syria, and interestingly being sold to Ukraine against their war with Russia.
As Kate Crawford has argued in the ‘Labor’ chapter, there is a justifiable skepticism against the takeover of wage labor by machines as the sole means of human existence in a capitalist economic system: the crushing of the work of people who already perform for long hours and in difficult conditions by new features that would force them to be more productive.
In contrast to this narrative, as the war industry becomes more integrated into AI technology, it opens the door to new ethical questions: the mechanization of killing. The game-changing role of Bayraktar drones in the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia was drastic. Armenia, isolated from any support from the world in its war with Azerbaijan lost the war, and was forced to abandon Karabakh. On the other hand, Azerbaijan which is being economically and militarily supported by Turkey, got an overwhelming victory by using Bayraktar drones with significantly fewer losses in comparison to Armenia.
In the Syrian civil war, Turkey has allied itself with jihadist organizations against the ‘YPG threat’ and has been using Bayraktar drones to ‘save its eastern borders’. By using Bayraktar drones, the Turkish Army is assassinating figures seen as a threat, which also usually results in civilian deaths. The use of drones is being employed to sell an illusion of victory to Turkish society, which is crushed by economic crisis and undemocratic rule, yet they are embraced with frustrated enthusiasm by its nationalist and conservative segments of society.
The example of Turkey’s war industry shows how the narrative of facilitation it hides behind can emerge as constructs that enable the strong to consolidate the power of the strong – killing, destroying, detecting. For a region already wrought by conflicts and war, having a country like Turkey profiting from its production of modern AI war weapons does not promise an end to the wars and conflicts.
Recently, and prior to reading this chapter and in relation to it, first heard the term kafala (Arabic), or as some call it “the modern slavery system”. This is the recruitment of migrants for the purpose of working mostly in countries of the Arabian Peninsula, legally and even with a minimum of protection. Nothing could be further from the reality: the only thing it guarantees is the abuse of power by certain governments and/or companies that only require cheap (not to say free) and low-skilled labour for domestic activities or construction. It was originated in the countries of the Persian Gulf, and later, with the oil boom, the modern version of this model of slavery began to develop. Many countries still maintain it, some in its entirety and others partially, including Iran, Lebanon and Bahrain, among others.
How fortuitous it is that all this sought-after labour that is given empty promises of work tends to come from countries with broken economies and high poverty rates. These people arrive deceived, attracted by the idea of being able to earn a decent salary, have a home and a more or less dignified life under the protection of this contract. However, this seductive opportunity is nothing more than a simple game of these big companies, which is very difficult to resist. This is why many of these people, once they land in the country in question, are tied and subjugated to this contract and therefore to the orders of these authorities. They cannot refuse to work, even if they are exploited and under extreme conditions. In addition, their passports are confiscated to isolate them, because without documentation they cannot change jobs or leave the country. And as if that were not enough, they are not paid what they agreed to be paid. They are slaves in the 21st century.
Having said that, what I would like to get at is that many of these countries use this type of technological advances for the processing and storage of their data, and not only for that but also to have a strategic and precise control of all relevant information about these people. What impact can the use of AI have in this case? Obviously in worsening the situation of these people and continuing this massive isolation against the will of many. It is very difficult to obtain reliable data on whether these countries are currently using AI for this purpose. In any case, it is assumed that the AI here would be a political weapon with considerable power to dominate the population without limits.
In Kate Crawford’s book “Atlas of AI”, the section “Labor” examines the effects of artificial intelligence on the workforce. Crawford notes that artificial intelligence has important implications not only for the automation of jobs but also for the measurement, control, and regulation of labor. The chapter emphasizes that the widespread use of artificial intelligence in the business world has caused changes in the labor market and many professions face the risk of disappearing, but it is pointed out that new business opportunities can also arise through the creative use of artificial intelligence.
Technological developments such as artificial intelligence and automation can radically change this industry. The biggest example of opportunities is productivity growth. Artificial intelligence and automation can provide a significant efficiency increase in logistics operations. With AI, things can be done faster and at a lower cost. Another positive development can be experienced in the customer experience. With the impact of artificial intelligence, customized services can be provided to customers and the service speed can increase. Finally, automation can create significant interest in some professional branches. For example, the demand for specialists such as artificial intelligence specialists, data scientists, and robotics engineers may increase.
On the other hand, every new development brings with it risks that can be experienced in a negative sense. In contrast to the last positive example, artificial intelligence may cause some jobs to be performed by machine power instead of human power. Another risk is the concern that may be experienced about the security of personal data after the disappearance of the human hand. This may require strengthening security measures and tightening regulatory inspections. Finally, initiatives made with artificial intelligence on behalf of some issues where human emotions are also important, especially when making human decisions, may not have the right results. For example, if we think that AI is used in the field of law, this may cause problems in the decisions to be made, since the decisions made by artificial intelligence will be made only through analytical logic. After we leave human emotions and social morality out of the equation, things can go out of hand.
As a result, while the increase of artificial intelligence and automation in the Middle East may have a positive impact on productivity, customer experience, and creating new professional lines, it may lead to the disappearance of some professional lines, increased concerns about data security issues and a decrease in the value of human feelings. After all, while evaluating these new opportunities, we should also pay attention to the risks that these technologies may bring.
I quite liked Kate Crawford’s Labor chapter because it draws attention to the current socio-economic effects of AI instead of the usual conspiracy theories like ‘AI will take all people’s jobs and all sectors will disappear in the future’. When the AI discussion is approached as a realm of the sociology of history, the concepts such as alienation, optimization, and, mechanization, which emerged after the industrial age such examples as Ford’s supply chain mechanism, will undergo a shift in the context of AI. Kate Crawford’s sociological approach is quite valuable in making sense of today’s market structure. One of the areas where AI is used most in infrastructures such as Amazon’s work optimization. Amazon’s business optimization is a way to measure how much time off workers take, how efficiently they work, and the revenue they generate, all on a small scale. It provides outputs almost like the outputs of computers to make sense of the functioning, and all this work is done by mechanical systems that do not understand human conditions. This often means that workers are alienated from themselves and their work. Moreover, the class most affected by inhuman conditions under the name of optimization are migrants, who often cannot find work and have to accept precarious conditions. Considering the damages caused by AI and optimization in the context of the Middle East, another layer is added to the inhumane working conditions of migrant workers who are already insecurely employed.
Moreover, another layer of this exploitation system is the “ghost workers” who work behind the configuration of AI. Large companies often outsource these ghost workers from the Near and Far East in the name of efficiency. The majority of these outsourced workers earn less than their counterparts at the same level and have to work longer hours.
Another aspect that is discussed by Crawford is the lack of agency of these “ghost workers” since AI is only valued as an end product and there is not enough mention of the team behind the configuration. The workers who do not get adequate attribution may end up feeling alienated. Furthermore, the inequality in the workplace between Westerners and non-westerners only benefits the sense of alienation. What Crawford wrote reminded me of a short meme I saw on Twitter recently: an AI robot collapses after 24 hours of work. There are quite a lot of people in the world working twelve hours or more, and most of these people are in the Middle East and the Far East. Looking at this simple example, the fantasy of self-sufficiency that AI offers only causes employers to look even more mechanistic to the workers in precarious conditions. While AI technology is not self-sufficient in today’s conditions, and it is still one of the most expensive technologies, the weight of its promises for the future is disproportionately falling on the working class. In this respect, these are the professions that large companies outsource to the Middle East and whose tasks are targeted to be taken over by AI in the future: factory workers, textile workers, and supply chain workers are the most affected by the current popularization of AI. Blue-collar workers are treated as robots even though the configuration will not be 100% AI-based in the future. To sum up, I think that AI technology added a new layer to the industrial revolution’s consequences of mechanization and alienation of jobs, and the working class will be the sector that will leave this change with the biggest damage.
Laboring in the Age of AI: Facing the Unstoppable Revolution
Fears voiced by Kate Crawford in the second chapter of “Atlas of AI” vary in their relevance depending on the scale at which we assess them. From the standpoint of individual AI implementation in modern production chains, millions of people might find themselves left behind, compelled to switch occupations or assume roles they wouldn’t otherwise consider in a different market scenario.
However, when considering the broader context, I believe humanity has little option but to utilize all available means to boost production. There appears to be no alternative for enhancing living standards other than by improving the productivity of every individual. While this could be achieved through education and social reforms, AI is likely to represent our next step in this pursuit.
Not long ago, from a historical viewpoint, Thomas Malthus would argue that the development and prosperity we presently witness worldwide, even in the poorest nations, were essentially inconceivable. Yet, here we are. I’m composing this article on a computer so potent that if I were transported back to the 1950s, I could sell it to either the American or Soviet government for millions of dollars. Now this device is even affordable to someone earning minimum wage in Germany or many other developed countries. It’s highly efficient, and coupled with the knowledge I’ve gained from studying at tuition-free universities, I can conduct quantitative analyses that would have taken hundreds of people years to complete just a few decades ago.
Until the industrial revolution, only a minute fraction of the global population had access to facilities now regarded as basic needs in modern developed countries. The diet and amenities enjoyed by the vast majority of modern Europeans far exceed those available to monarchs 150 years ago. Industrialization and technological revolution opened up opportunities beyond basic food and tool production, reshaping social systems and enabling individuals from various social strata to access education and enhance both individual productivity and the complexity of their work.
In the short term or from the viewpoint of individual labor structure shifts in modern society, the impact might prove devastating. However, humanity has no foreseeable alternative to addressing poverty and social issues than by transitioning tasks from humans to machines wherever feasible, as every productivity boost enhances the value of human time.
A potential issue in some parts of the Middle East lies in competing with inexpensive products manufactured by developed chains utilizing AI. Local producers may struggle to compete. However, the AI revolution might impact global inequality differently, as software is easier to transfer than industrial machinery. The development of LLM and translation services could break down cultural barriers hindering education and access to the global labor market for populations in less developed countries. The results of the ongoing revolution are hard to predict, but it’s moving forward unstoppably, and we have no other choice but to deal with the consequences as they unfold.
Searching about AI and automation in Iran, not many results could be obtained from the internet. However, Iranian media promises a near development in the workplaces with the help of AI which will not affect the reduction of blue-collar forces.
One of the most important sectors in Iran which it’s use of automation and AI is clear is the car manufacturing company “Iran Khodro”. Iran Khodro has started the process of automation and modernizing assembly lines with the help of German robotic arm manufacturer “Kuka”. Although the effects of this automation on the workforce have not yet been studied, some possible opportunities and risks could arise from that.
When it comes to opportunities, it can be argued that automation facilitated the process of car manufacturing in a few ways. (painting the cars which is a lengthy process done in many different stages, carrying the different parts of the cars to assembly lines which is now done by conveyor belts, etc). However, according to the statistics, automation did not improve the overall quality of Iranian national cars.
As it is argued in the 2nd chapter of the book, automation is always linked with constant supervision and strict discipline, which can lead to the workforce losing the previous semi-freedom that they might had. Moreover, looking at the former process of car manufacturing in Iran, it seems that automation was intended to break down different stages of work and make it more detailed. This could lead to the workforce doing very mundane, small, repetitive tasks which make them lose control over the production of the car as a whole and lead to the classic picture of alienated workers.
Furthermore, as the chapter argues, many workers could have been pushed to work in the background to make AI and automation perform flawlessly. We may argue that some kind of exploitation and invisible work are in progress or as the book refers to it “human-fueled automation”. A lot of work must be done for the maintenance of the AI and usually, these works are very much underpaid and in the end this is a common impression that machines and AI perform without problem and without anyone guiding them. Considering AI in the Iranian context, where it seems there is not much education in the field of AI offered for workers, they might find it quite difficult to adjust and habituate themselves to the new automation system, which again comes from the deeply held belief of employers that workers are some kind of raw material and could be shaped in a way more beneficial for work.
Overall, the chapter provides new insight into the use of AI in the workplace and shatters the idea of flawless, independent AI use and automation which Iran and the above-mentioned factory are not an exception.
While AI has sparked a new wave of excitement in the world’s highly capitalist society, given its ability to perform tasks previously undertaken by humans—albeit faster, more accurately, and without the need for breaks—it can have either profoundly positive or deeply concerning effects, depending on the region and, more specifically, the type of government implementing these systems. The Middle East stands out as a hotspot for authoritarian regimes, as evidenced by countries in and around the Arabian Peninsula. Qatar’s controversial World Cup has faced numerous allegations of human rights violations, driven by pressure from the regime to meet project completion deadlines. Kate Crawford’s characterization of AI’s role as creating a master-slave dynamic, particularly with the integration of “flawless” AI monitoring systems, could exacerbate hardships for workers and their rights.
It’s crucial to recognize that the root of these issues lies not in the technology itself, but rather in its implementation. Crawford highlights the use of electronic badges by companies to monitor workers’ arrival and departure times. While such tracking systems theoretically ensure fairness in upholding employer-employee contract provisions, the key concern is the nature of the work demanded of employees. For instance, in many European Union countries, where the standard full-time working hours are around 8 hours per day, using a badge to log arrival and departure times is considered routine and fair, as it aligns with agreed-upon terms. Failure to adhere to these terms without prior notice would be deemed unfair to the employer, who rightfully expects employees to fulfill their contracted hours.
However, it’s important to note that most EU countries also have mechanisms in place to combat any potential exploitation by employers, such as unions and governmental bodies that intervene against illegal requests for overtime work. Unfortunately, the Middle East region currently lacks similar safeguards, as many governmental bodies are not sufficiently independent to protect workers’ interests, instead serving as extensions of central government directives.
AI represents one of the most ambitious technological endeavors of our time, and the oil-rich countries of the Middle East are heavily investing in its development. Failing to cultivate an advanced AI sector could result in falling behind in the coming years, as competition within the sector drives companies to invest increasing amounts of resources into developing and maintaining cutting-edge systems. However, the environmental implications of building and operating such systems, which often rely on burning fossil fuels for power and consuming significant amounts of water for cooling, pose challenges for many countries looking to join the race for AI supremacy.
The potential uses of AI by authoritarian regimes range from optimizing modern systems to more troubling applications like surveillance, propaganda, or military purposes. Given the lack of independent institutions to ensure checks and balances, it’s reasonable to harbor doubts and mistrust toward authoritarian countries. China’s communist regime, for example, already employs extensive surveillance systems throughout the country, which, while effective in deterring criminal activity, also serve to suppress free speech and dissenting opinions. Topics such as the Tiananmen Square protests and subsequent crackdown are heavily monitored and censored on platforms like WeChat, indicating a broader pattern of controlling discourse deemed “unreasonable” by the regime.
While it is a pure speculation that this or that country in the ME will use existing and future AI systems to suppress free speech or intervene in people’s private lives, it is definitely a scary possibility.
*I’ve posted the same text about an hour ago, but since it is not visible on the blog, I’m reposting the same. Sorry if it will appear as a duplicate*
While AI has sparked a new wave of excitement in the world’s highly capitalist society, given its ability to perform tasks previously undertaken by humans—albeit faster, more accurately, and without the need for breaks—it can have either profoundly positive or deeply concerning effects, depending on the region and, more specifically, the type of government implementing these systems. The Middle East stands out as a hotspot for authoritarian regimes, as evidenced by countries in and around the Arabian Peninsula. Qatar’s controversial World Cup has faced numerous allegations of human rights violations, driven by pressure from the regime to meet project completion deadlines. Kate Crawford’s characterization of AI’s role as creating a master-slave dynamic, particularly with the integration of “flawless” AI monitoring systems, could exacerbate hardships for workers and their rights.
It’s crucial to recognize that the root of these issues lies not in the technology itself, but rather in its implementation. Crawford highlights the use of electronic badges by companies to monitor workers’ arrival and departure times. While such tracking systems theoretically ensure fairness in upholding employer-employee contract provisions, the key concern is the nature of the work demanded of employees. For instance, in many European Union countries, where the standard full-time working hours are around 8 hours per day, using a badge to log arrival and departure times is considered routine and fair, as it aligns with agreed-upon terms. Failure to adhere to these terms without prior notice would be deemed unfair to the employer, who rightfully expects employees to fulfill their contracted hours.
However, it’s important to note that most EU countries also have mechanisms in place to combat any potential exploitation by employers, such as unions and governmental bodies that intervene against illegal requests for overtime work. Unfortunately, the Middle East region currently lacks similar safeguards, as many governmental bodies are not sufficiently independent to protect workers’ interests, instead serving as extensions of central government directives.
AI represents one of the most ambitious technological endeavors of our time, and the oil-rich countries of the Middle East are heavily investing in its development. Failing to cultivate an advanced AI sector could result in falling behind in the coming years, as competition within the sector drives companies to invest increasing amounts of resources into developing and maintaining cutting-edge systems. However, the environmental implications of building and operating such systems, which often rely on burning fossil fuels for power and consuming significant amounts of water for cooling, pose challenges for many countries looking to join the race for AI supremacy.
The potential uses of AI by authoritarian regimes range from optimizing modern systems to more troubling applications like surveillance, propaganda, or military purposes. Given the lack of independent institutions to ensure checks and balances, it’s reasonable to harbor doubts and mistrust toward authoritarian countries. China’s communist regime, for example, already employs extensive surveillance systems throughout the country, which, while effective in deterring criminal activity, also serve to suppress free speech and dissenting opinions. Topics such as the Tiananmen Square protests and subsequent crackdown are heavily monitored and censored on platforms like WeChat, indicating a broader pattern of controlling discourse deemed “unreasonable” by the regime.
While it is a pure speculation that this or that country in the ME will use existing and future AI systems to suppress free speech or intervene in people’s private lives, it is definitely a scary possibility.
May 10
While AI has sparked a new wave of excitement in the world’s highly capitalist society, given its ability to perform tasks previously undertaken by humans—albeit faster, more accurately, and without the need for breaks—it can have either profoundly positive or deeply concerning effects, depending on the region and, more specifically, the type of government implementing these systems. The Middle East stands out as a hotspot for authoritarian regimes, as evidenced by countries in and around the Arabian Peninsula. Qatar’s controversial World Cup has faced numerous allegations of human rights violations, driven by pressure from the regime to meet project completion deadlines. Kate Crawford’s characterization of AI’s role as creating a master-slave dynamic, particularly with the integration of “flawless” AI monitoring systems, could exacerbate hardships for workers and their rights.
It’s crucial to recognize that the root of these issues lies not in the technology itself, but rather in its implementation. Crawford highlights the use of electronic badges by companies to monitor workers’ arrival and departure times. While such tracking systems theoretically ensure fairness in upholding employer-employee contract provisions, the key concern is the nature of the work demanded of employees. For instance, in many European Union countries, where the standard full-time working hours are around 8 hours per day, using a badge to log arrival and departure times is considered routine and fair, as it aligns with agreed-upon terms. Failure to adhere to these terms without prior notice would be deemed unfair to the employer, who rightfully expects employees to fulfill their contracted hours.
However, it’s important to note that most EU countries also have mechanisms in place to combat any potential exploitation by employers, such as unions and governmental bodies that intervene against illegal requests for overtime work. Unfortunately, the Middle East region currently lacks similar safeguards, as many governmental bodies are not sufficiently independent to protect workers’ interests, instead serving as extensions of central government directives.
AI represents one of the most ambitious technological endeavors of our time, and the oil-rich countries of the Middle East are heavily investing in its development. Failing to cultivate an advanced AI sector could result in falling behind in the coming years, as competition within the sector drives companies to invest increasing amounts of resources into developing and maintaining cutting-edge systems. However, the environmental implications of building and operating such systems, which often rely on burning fossil fuels for power and consuming significant amounts of water for cooling, pose challenges for many countries looking to join the race for AI supremacy.
The potential uses of AI by authoritarian regimes range from optimizing modern systems to more troubling applications like surveillance, propaganda, or military purposes. Given the lack of independent institutions to ensure checks and balances, it’s reasonable to harbor doubts and mistrust toward authoritarian countries. China’s communist regime, for example, already employs extensive surveillance systems throughout the country, which, while effective in deterring criminal activity, also serve to suppress free speech and dissenting opinions. Topics such as the Tiananmen Square protests and subsequent crackdown are heavily monitored and censored on platforms like WeChat, indicating a broader pattern of controlling discourse deemed “unreasonable” by the regime.
While it is a pure speculation that this or that country in the ME will use existing and future AI systems to suppress free speech or intervene in people’s private lives, it is definitely a scary possibility.