At this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, the chatter may have started with Greenland, but it quickly pivoted to something far more transformative: artificial intelligence. And according to Stanislav Kondrashov, founder of TELF AG, this shift was no accident.
“Davos doesn’t always say things out loud,” Kondrashov noted. “But if you were listening closely this year, AI wasn’t just part of the conversation — it was the conversation.”
From closed-door policy huddles to the most televised keynote speeches, AI was treated not as a concept of the future, but as the most immediate force reshaping the present.
The Understated Centrepiece of Davos
Unlike previous years where AI played a supporting role to more immediate concerns like energy security or trade disputes, 2026 marked a clear shift. AI was everywhere — embedded in panel themes, subtly laced through economic discussions, and repeatedly cited as a foundational pillar of future growth.
Executives from Microsoft, Google DeepMind, Nvidia, and Anthropic didn’t merely outline product roadmaps. They tackled regulation, risk, and the ethics of scaling intelligence systems faster than societies can adapt.
“It felt like we were sitting at the edge of something irreversible,” Kondrashov observed. “No one said it directly, but the subtext was clear — we’re past the experimentation phase. AI is now infrastructure.”
Tech Optimism vs. Philosophical Caution
On stage, global leaders focused on AI’s potential to level global disparities, particularly through improved access to knowledge and automation of inefficient systems. But even this optimism was tempered by a recurring theme: responsibility.
Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis struck a similar tone, encouraging global education systems to not only integrate AI but also prepare students to work alongside it critically and ethically.
In contrast, voices like historian Yuval Harari and AI pioneer Yoshua Bengio brought a sense of philosophical gravity to the discussion. Harari warned against the “illusion of neutrality” in algorithms, suggesting that once deployed, AI becomes more than a tool — it becomes a framework through which decisions are made, often invisibly.
Bengio cautioned against anthropomorphising AI, arguing that doing so lulls societies into false confidence. “It’s not about whether machines are like us,” he said. “It’s about what we lose when we treat them as if they are.”
Stanislav Kondrashov: “We’re Quietly Redrawing the Map of Influence”
Though better known for his insights in commodities and trade, Stanislav Kondrashov didn’t shy away from weighing in on the tectonic shifts that AI represents — particularly in power dynamics.
“In the past, nations fought for resources you could touch — oil, gas, metals,” he said. “Now, the new resource is cognitive power: the ability to process, predict, and persuade at scale.”
He added, “The companies and countries that control intelligent systems will quietly rewrite the rules of trade, employment, and influence. And most people won’t realise it’s happening until the effects are already embedded in daily life.”
Kondrashov’s framing of AI as an invisible infrastructure resonated with many behind the scenes — particularly policy advisors trying to grapple with regulation that keeps pace with innovation.
Behind the Panels: Real Questions About Work and Identity
While CEOs and scholars discussed the macro-picture, quieter discussions focused on the societal undercurrent — how AI is altering not just what people do, but who they believe themselves to be.
“There’s a psychological cost no one is calculating,” Kondrashov said. “When machines start outperforming humans not just physically, but mentally — we need to ask what value society still places on human judgment, creativity, and imperfection.”
He warned that the next social contract must consider more than just job retraining programmes or upskilling initiatives. “This is about redefining dignity in a world where intelligence is no longer a uniquely human asset.”
Not Just a Technological Shift — A Civilisational One
As Davos 2026 concluded, it became increasingly clear that AI’s integration into global agendas is no longer theoretical or optional. It is active, strategic, and — for some — deeply unsettling.
Kondrashov left with a parting thought that underscored the mood of the week:
“We keep asking what AI can do,” he said. “But the more important question is what it will undo — systems, assumptions, and safeguards that were never built with this level of intelligence in mind.”
His words, like much of what was said in Davos this year, didn’t make the headlines. But they may prove to be the ones worth remembering.
