The Question Is the Story

Decision makers in Washington DC have been playing that exact game for thirty-two months now. Biden signed an executive order for "safe" AI. Trump repealed it to "eliminate barriers." Months later, he issued another one to "ensure a uniform framework," and recently, a fourth one to "promote innovation." Four political pivots in order to disguise a loop that speaks for itself.

The underlying shift is geopolitical: the digital map is deglobalizing. This fragmentation into regional blocs proves that the current race isn't about deregulating; it’s about consolidating the few tech hubs that will end up writing the rules for everyone else.

Argentina has jumped right into the fray. Javier Milei proposed in the Financial Times an extreme deregulation of automated corporations with zero human intervention, comparing the model to the Dutch East India Company. Yuval Noah Harari’s rebuttal was lethal: that company didn't just build the splendor of Amsterdam; it also erected Batavia, the colony that subjugated entire regions without answering to anyone. Two different takes on the exact same corporate architecture.

Meanwhile, a silent process is unfolding inside companies. In Silicon Valley, Satya Nadella validated the very thesis I described in Embracing Uncertainty. AI can gut an organization of its know-how, much like the first wave of globalization stripped half the world of its factories.

The mechanics are brutal. If you hand over your processes and your teams' judgment to an external black box, that knowledge is no longer yours. Your proprietary edge becomes a standardized commodity available to your competitors. Quarterly balance sheets might look flawless, but your token capital and intellectual property will have vanished. This warning comes straight from the CEO of the company selling the most AI infrastructure on the planet; the fact that he's right doesn't change who is commercializing the cure.

Driving development shouldn't be confused with outsourcing the key pillars of our coexistence. Pope Leo XIV made it clear in the Magnifica Humanitas encyclical (May 2026): artificial systems lack compassion and tend to amplify the dominance of those who already hold power, unless we enforce an ethical disarmament of technology.

This is the blind spot for corporate boards: social license. Tobacco and oil proved that no industry survives without society's tacit permission. AI has plenty of expanding regulations—from the European AI Act to US policies—but it lacks a social license. And it will not have thirty years to earn it.

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that every leader will face a choice: build a Tower of Babel or build a bridge. This goes beyond internal architecture; it speaks to a global stage where a select few decide for everyone, and to a power structure designed to swallow organizations whole while they pay for the privilege.

On this new chessboard, no CEO is going to survive by trying to go it alone. Individual achievements that don't serve humanity don't build a legacy; they are just transitory wealth. The Edelman Trust Barometer confirms that 3 out of 4 people in Latin America are already operating under an island mentality. Breaking that isolation is our primary responsibility. True leadership is about shifting the paradigm.

Should we keep repeating the same question, or do we cut it short right here, while we can still choose how the story ends?

With human love,

Juanca