Experts Split on Impact of Frontier AI Slowdown for Developing World

Event report AIFOD Weekly AI Review, Session 28, online, 19 September 2026. Published 4 November 2026.

Specialists from six countries expressed conflicting views on whether moderating the speed of advanced artificial intelligence would assist developing economies, during an online discussion organised by the AI for Developing Countries Forum (AIFOD), which publishes this website.

Several panellists contended that international discussions around pacing fail to reflect local realities in developing nations. Ademulegun Blessing James of Nigeria’s Africa Tech for Development Initiative referenced the African Union’s Continental AI Strategy, arguing that a reduced pace could allow regions time to address shortfalls in digital literacy, financing, and compute. Alan Ross, representing Ireland’s International Association of AI Agents, asserted that the developing world largely does not require frontier systems, noting that United Nations agencies have already catalogued approximately 100 functioning solutions that suffer instead from poor deployment and funding. In Bangladesh, seven out of ten individuals lack digital literacy, according to Md. Rabiul Islam of the country's Microcredit Regulatory Authority.

Market control and governance

Participants also raised concerns that self-imposed slowdowns and standards could consolidate power among established technology firms. Islam observed from microfinance history that incumbent players often back rules to limit emergent competitors, while Kunal Panchamia of India's eProtect 360 Solutions warned against developers designing their own regulatory oversight.

Dissenting from the calls for deceleration, Dhaval Doshi from India’s Schbang Digital Solutions warned that slowing development would fail to assist small enterprises and individuals, while disproportionately burdening smaller actors with compliance costs. Regarding global supervision, speakers noted a lack of clear historic precedents, though Ross suggested international oversight modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency would have to focus on monitoring physical infrastructure and compute chips rather than software distribution.