The question isn’t whether AI is perfect—it isn’t. The real question is whether AI is destined to ruin the world. To answer that honestly, we must look past science-fiction panic and recognize a fundamental truth: AI is a tool, and a tool’s impact is defined by its user, not its existence. We do not ban medicine because of side effects. We do not outlaw electricity because it can shock, or abandon cars because they crash. Instead, we build safety systems. AI deserves exactly the same approach. Look at the evidence of what AI is doing right now: • In healthcare: It is helping doctors detect diseases early and accelerating lifesaving drug discovery. • In science: It is processing climate data at a scale humans simply cannot match. • In daily life: It is providing personalized education and breaking down accessibility barriers for people with disabilities. We must never confuse possibility with inevitability. Could AI create problems? Yes. But if we judged every human invention solely by its worst imaginable misuse, we would still be living in caves. The internet spreads misinformation, yet it democratized knowledge. Nuclear physics can destroy, yet it powers millions of homes.

The question before us is not whether artificial intelligence is perfect. It is not. The real question is whether artificial intelligence is going to ruin the world. And if we are going to answer that question honestly, we have to look beyond fear, beyond science-fiction scenarios, and beyond the assumption that every powerful technology must eventually become dangerous. Artificial intelligence is a tool. Like every powerful tool humanity has created, its impact depends on how we use it, how we regulate it, and how responsibly we develop it. The existence of risk does not prove that something is destined to cause disaster. We do not abandon medicine because medicines can have side effects. We do not abandon electricity because electricity can be dangerous. We do not abandon cars because cars can cause accidents. Instead, we build safety systems. AI deserves exactly the same approach. And when we look at what AI is actually doing in the world today, the evidence is not simply a story of danger. It is also a story of progress. AI is helping doctors analyse medical information, researchers accelerate scientific discovery, businesses automate repetitive work, students access educational support, and people with disabilities interact with technology in ways that were previously difficult or impossible. The World Health Organization has also recognised potential benefits of AI in healthcare, while stressing the importance of appropriate governance and safeguards. So the debate should not be framed as: “AI: good or evil?” That is the wrong question. The better question is: “How do we make sure a powerful technology is used responsibly?” And that is a problem humans have solved before. Consider one of the biggest fears surrounding AI: jobs. Yes, AI will change the labour market. Some jobs will disappear, some jobs will change, and new jobs will be created. But technological change has always done this. The arrival of the computer changed office work. The internet transformed communication. Machines transformed manufacturing. The answer was not to stop technological progress. The answer was to adapt education, training, and employment around it. AI should be treated the same way. Another argument is that AI could be used maliciously. That concern is legitimate. But notice what that argument actually demonstrates. It demonstrates that humans can misuse AI. It does not demonstrate that AI itself is destined to ruin humanity. A hammer can build a house or break a window. The existence of misuse does not determine the purpose of the tool. That is why governments, researchers, companies, schools, and international organisations are developing rules and safety measures around artificial intelligence. The responsible response to a dangerous possibility is not automatically to eliminate the technology. It is to reduce the risk. And there is another point we cannot ignore. AI is not only a technology that creates new problems. It can also help us solve problems that already exist. Climate modelling, drug discovery, medical research, disaster prediction, accessibility, agriculture, logistics and scientific research all involve enormous amounts of information. Humans are incredibly capable. But humans have limited time. AI can process information at a scale that individuals cannot. Used responsibly, that does not replace human intelligence. It extends it. And perhaps the most important distinction in this debate is this: We should not confuse possibility with inevitability. Could AI be misused? Yes. Could AI create serious problems? Yes. But “this could happen” is not evidence that “this will happen.” If we judged every invention by its worst imaginable use, humanity would never have progressed. The internet could spread misinformation, but it also gives billions of people access to knowledge. Nuclear technology can be used destructively, but it can also produce electricity. Chemistry can produce dangerous substances, but it also produces medicines. Technology is rarely defined by its worst possible use. It is defined by what society chooses to do with it. And that brings us back to the original question. Will AI ruin the world? There is no evidence that we should treat that outcome as inevitable. What we do have is evidence that AI already provides useful applications, while governments and institutions are developing frameworks to manage its risks. So we should neither worship AI nor fear it blindly. We should understand it. We should regulate it. We should test it. We should educate people about it. And above all, we should keep humans responsible for the decisions that matter. Because the future of AI is not simply a technological question. It is a human one. AI can amplify what humanity is capable of doing. That means our responsibility is not to run away from the technology. It is to become responsible enough to use it well. Ladies and gentlemen, AI does not have to be perfect to be beneficial. It does not have to be risk-free to be worth developing. And the existence of a possible danger does not prove the inevitability of disaster. The question is not whether AI will change the world. It already is. The question is what we choose to do with that change. And if humanity approaches artificial intelligence with evidence, regulation, responsibility and human judgment, AI does not have to be the end of our progress. It can become another chapter in it. Thank you

[No submission - Time expired]