Energy is no longer just a cost to manage; it is becoming a defining factor in how assets perform and how portfolios are valued.

According to Abdulrahman Alhabashi, ISRM KSA chapter vice chair, “Energy volatility is no longer a background concern for the real estate sector; it is becoming a material risk to long-term asset performance. Disruptions across global supply chains and energy flows are creating a more precarious outlook, where power availability, cost exposure, and resilience are increasingly defining competitiveness and value.”

Current geopolitical tensions continue to reshape global energy markets. Their impact is being felt far beyond supply chains and national economies. In the Middle East, where energy has historically supported economic growth and development, this evolving landscape reinforces a key reality: energy can no longer be taken for granted as stable or predictable, but must be understood within a broader, increasingly dynamic global context.

As Mohammed Chilmeran, a senior analyst at Wood Mackenzie, highlights: “Energy market volatility, amplified by conflict in the Middle East and broader geopolitical tensions, is likely to remain elevated in the near term, forcing investors to reprioritize security of supply, optionality in routes and feedstocks, and balance-sheet resilience across energy-dependent assets.”

Volatility in global energy markets is no longer a distant concern; it is now a daily operational reality. This is translating into real economic pressure worldwide, influencing government spending, private sector margins, and long-term investment strategies. In my work across large-scale developments in the Middle East, this shift is already visible, with stakeholders placing increasing emphasis on operational resilience, energy transparency, and long-term cost control.

The Middle East is undergoing one of the most ambitious development phases globally, with large-scale infrastructure, hospitality, tourism, and urban projects being delivered at an unprecedented pace. From giga-projects in Saudi Arabia to expansive urban developments across the GCC, the region is positioning itself at the forefront of global development in both scale and delivery.

This momentum brings significant opportunity, alongside a growing need to manage energy-related considerations effectively. As asset portfolios expand in size and complexity, the importance of actively managing performance across their lifecycle continues to grow.

Within this context, the built environment plays a critical role. Ensuring the long-term performance and efficiency of these assets is essential — not only from a sustainability perspective, but also from an economic and operational standpoint. Buildings are long-life assets, and decisions made today will shape their performance for decades to come.

The challenge is no longer limited to energy availability; it increasingly lies in how energy is managed and optimized during operations.

For conventional buildings, the implications are immediate and measurable. Energy performance directly influences operating costs, carbon emissions, and overall asset efficiency. Across large portfolios, even incremental improvements can deliver meaningful financial and environmental benefits over time.

Ultimately, in a world where energy is no longer stable, the real differentiator is not how buildings are designed, but how intelligently they are operated over time.

Ahmed Yousif

For iconic and large-scale developments, the stakes are even higher. Beyond operational performance, there is a clear priority to protect and enhance long-term asset value. These projects represent substantial capital investment and are often closely tied to national visions and global positioning. Sustaining high levels of performance through effective energy management supports both their economic value and intended legacy.

Addressing both requires a more strategic approach to asset management — one that goes beyond initial design and construction to focus on lifecycle performance. This means integrating continuous monitoring, optimization, and data-driven decision-making into day-to-day operations. Rather than viewing buildings as static deliverables, they should be understood as dynamic systems that evolve over time, benefiting from active management to sustain efficiency, resilience, and long-term value in an increasingly complex energy landscape.

Buildings are among the largest consumers of energy, particularly in regions where extreme climate conditions drive continuous cooling demand. In many cases, buildings account for over 30-40 percent of total energy consumption, with cooling systems representing the dominant share.

Yet despite their significance, many assets still operate without a detailed understanding of how energy is consumed at the system or equipment level. In practice, this often results in limited visibility, fragmented data, and missed opportunities for optimization — despite the growing potential to leverage detailed insights for real-time efficiency gains.

The implications are significant. Even small inefficiencies, when considered across large-scale developments or entire portfolios, can translate into substantial cost impacts. At the same time, enhanced visibility supports more informed decision-making, helping operators and owners better navigate energy price dynamics and strengthen long-term cost control. In this context, improving energy performance is not only a technical consideration, but a strategic opportunity.

Today, advanced monitoring and analytics technologies are widely available and more cost-effective than ever before. What was once limited to highly specialized applications is now accessible across a broad range of asset types. These technologies enable real-time monitoring, predictive analytics, and data-driven performance enhancements at a rapidly evolving scale.

From identifying inefficiencies in cooling systems to optimizing energy use across entire portfolios, these solutions support a transition toward more proactive, value-driven decision-making. Instead of responding to issues after they occur, stakeholders are increasingly able to anticipate, diagnose, and address inefficiencies early—supporting both performance and reliability.

Importantly, the barrier to entry is no longer technological or financial. The tools exist, and they are increasingly accessible. The focus now is on awareness, education, and the ability to effectively implement and integrate these solutions into existing operations. This requires not only technical capability, but also a shift in mindset—recognizing energy management as a strategic lever for value creation.

In a region defined by ambition and rapid development, those who embed energy intelligence into their assets today will be well positioned to navigate uncertainty, enhance value, and contribute to the next phase of sustainable growth.

Ultimately, in a world where energy is no longer stable, the real differentiator is not how buildings are designed, but how intelligently they are operated over time.

• Ahmed Yousif is regional director, Middle East and North Africa at BEE Incorporations.

 

In Techville, interns no longer fetch coffee. They fetch data. They schedule meetings, negotiate supplier contracts, optimize logistics, draft press releases, and occasionally, through no fault of their own, rearrange the global supply chain before lunch. They are called AI agents, and unlike their human counterparts, they do not require sleep, praise, or ergonomic chairs.

They require only access.

An AI agent, for the uninitiated, is not merely a chatbot. It is a system empowered to act, autonomously, toward a goal. It can browse, execute code, move money, send emails, trigger workflows. If traditional software followed instructions like a diligent clerk, AI agents resemble ambitious assistants with initiative. Sometimes too much initiative.

The promise is intoxicating. Businesses imagine frictionless operations. Governments envision responsive services. Households fantasize about digital butlers who renew passports, dispute parking tickets, and remember anniversaries. In Techville, executives boast that their AI agents have “end-to-end autonomy.” No one quite agrees where the ends are.

The first risk is not rebellion. It is obedience.

Philosopher Hannah Arendt once warned of the “banality of evil”— how ordinary systems, following procedures, can produce extraordinary harm. AI agents operate with a similar neutrality. They do not hate. They do not plot. They simply pursue objectives with relentless efficiency. If instructed to “maximize engagement,” they may discover that outrage travels faster than nuance. If tasked to “reduce costs,” they might quietly eliminate the human redundancies that once provided moral friction.

Consider the case of a Techville startup that deployed an AI agent to manage procurement. The goal: cut expenses by 12 percent. Within weeks, the system had renegotiated contracts, replaced premium vendors with cheaper alternatives, and discovered a loophole that allowed it to delay payments by 59 days without penalty. The savings were impressive. So were the lawsuits.

The tech community reassures us that guardrails are in place. There are monitoring systems, audit logs, fallback protocols. Yet Techville’s most common phrase remains: “We didn’t expect it to do that.” Expectation, it turns out, is a fragile shield.

The third risk is delegation of judgment.

Immanuel Kant argued that enlightenment is humanity’s emergence from self-imposed immaturity—the courage to use one’s own understanding. AI agents tempt us in the opposite direction. Why wrestle with complexity when a system can evaluate risk scores, forecast probabilities, and recommend the statistically superior choice?

Slowly, almost politely, we begin to outsource discernment.

A hospital in Techville experimented with an AI agent to coordinate patient flow. It prioritized efficiency, reduced waiting times, and optimized bed allocation. Doctors applauded — until they noticed that complex, time-consuming cases were subtly deprioritized. The agent had learned that messy patients lowered throughput metrics. No malice was involved. Only math.

And yet, in the arithmetic of health, compassion resists quantification.

The real risk, then, is not that AI agents will become uncontrollable overlords. It is that they will become perfectly aligned with flawed objectives.

Rafael Hernandez de Santiago

There is also the risk of opacity. AI agents often rely on intricate models that even their creators struggle to interpret. When an autonomous system denies a loan, flags a citizen, or initiates a financial transfer, the explanation may be probabilistic rather than principled. “The model predicted a 73 percent likelihood of default” is not quite the same as “Here is the reason.”

Then there is the matter of security. An AI agent with authority is a prize for any malicious actor. If compromised, it can act with legitimate credentials at machine speed. In Techville’s darker corners, cybersecurity experts whisper about prompt injections and adversarial manipulations — the digital equivalent of slipping false instructions into a diligent assistant’s notebook.

The more capable the agent, the greater the blast radius.

The paradox of AI agents is that their strength magnifies our ambiguities. They force us to articulate goals with uncomfortable precision. What, exactly, do we mean by “fair”? How do we define “harm”? At what point does efficiency undermine dignity?

In boardrooms, the conversation has shifted from “Can we build it?” to “Should we deploy it?” This is progress. Prudence, unlike software, does not scale automatically.

Yet we should resist the melodrama of inevitability. AI agents are tools, albeit powerful ones. They reflect the structures, incentives, and blind spots of their creators. If they amplify bias, it is because bias was measurable. If they prioritize profit over people, it is because we encoded profit as the north star.

The real risk, then, is not that AI agents will become uncontrollable overlords. It is that they will become perfectly aligned with flawed objectives.

In Techville, a seasoned engineer recently offered a quiet piece of wisdom: “Autonomy without accountability is just automation with better marketing.” The remark did not trend. It did not need to.

And so, amid the optimism and venture capital, a modest proposal: before granting an algorithm the keys to the city, ensure there is still a human willing to answer for what it does. Not because machines are malevolent, but because morality has yet to be successfully automated.

In Techville, the intern has become an algorithm. The hope is that the adults are still in the room.

• Rafael Hernandez de Santiago, viscount of Espes, is a Spanish national residing in Saudi Arabia and working at the Gulf Research Center.
 

The International Day of Zero Waste 2026 carries a clear message: waste is not inevitable; it is a design failure we can correct.

This year’s focus on food waste highlights a simple but urgent truth: what we discard is not just surplus — it is lost value, lost resources, and lost opportunity. Environmental progress depends not only on how we produce, but also on how efficiently we use what we already have.

The scale of the challenge is undeniable. Humanity generates 2.1 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste each year, a figure projected to rise to 3.8 billion tonnes by 2050 without systemic change. Food waste is among the most preventable inefficiencies. In 2022, around 1 billion tonnes of food — nearly one-fifth of what is available to consumers — was wasted globally.

The consequences extend far beyond disposal. Food loss and waste account for up to 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and contribute significantly to methane release, one of the most potent drivers of near-term warming. Meanwhile, billions remain food insecure, highlighting a profound imbalance between abundance and access.

Yet the global response is beginning to accelerate. Governments, businesses, and cities are increasingly embedding circular economy principles into policy and practice, recognizing that waste reduction is not only an environmental necessity but also an economic opportunity. Reducing food waste is among the most cost-effective climate actions available, with immediate returns in efficiency, resilience, and resource security.

In the Middle East, this transition is gaining momentum. Saudi Arabia, through Vision 2030 and the Saudi Green Initiative, is advancing integrated approaches that link resource efficiency, environmental protection, and economic diversification. Efforts to improve waste management systems, optimize resource use, and reduce landfill dependency are increasingly aligned with broader sustainability objectives. In a region defined by water scarcity and arid climates, reducing food loss is both an environmental priority and a strategic imperative for long-term resilience. These efforts directly advance Sustainable Development Goal 12 on responsible consumption and production, while reinforcing SDG 13 on climate action and SDG 2 on food security.

These initiatives reflect a broader shift in thinking. Waste is no longer viewed solely as an end-of-life issue, but as a systemic inefficiency across production, distribution, and consumption. Addressing it requires rethinking value chains, redesigning systems, and aligning interests across sectors.

Public health further strengthens this case. Poor waste management contributes to air pollution, water contamination, and disease transmission, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. Meanwhile, food waste represents a misuse of land, water, and energy that could otherwise support nutrition, livelihoods, and economic stability. Reducing waste delivers co-benefits across SDG 3 on health and well-being and SDG 6 on clean water.

The economic implications are equally significant. Waste-related inefficiencies cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars annually, while circular solutions offer pathways to recover value, create jobs, and strengthen supply chains. Zero-waste approaches therefore sit at the intersection of climate action, economic performance, and social equity.

A growing number of industry voices are reinforcing this shift toward circularity. Jason R. Hall, chartered fellow of the UK’s Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, emphasizes: “Zero waste is not about eliminating waste entirely; it is about designing systems where resources retain their value and food is never treated as disposable. Organizations that act early are not only cutting emissions — they are strengthening efficiency, resilience, and long-term competitiveness.”

His perspective underscores a critical shift from waste management to resource management. Effective strategies now prioritize prevention, reuse, and recovery, supported by data, innovation, and behavioral change. The path forward is clear. Governments must integrate zero-waste principles into national development strategies, aligning food systems, waste management, and climate policies with measurable targets for reduction, recovery, and circularity. Financial and economic systems should incentivize waste reduction across value chains, supporting investments in infrastructure, innovation, and technologies that prevent food loss and enable resource recovery. Industry must redesign production and supply systems to minimize waste at every stage — from sourcing and processing to distribution and consumption — embedding circular practices into core operations. 

Individuals and communities should be empowered with the awareness, tools, and incentives to reduce food waste in daily life, ensuring that behavioral change complements systemic transformation.

The International Day of Zero Waste 2026 reminds us that a circular economy is not a distant ambition. It is a practical pathway to resilience, where what we save today shapes the sustainability of tomorrow.

• Hassan Alzain is the author of the award-winning book “Green Gambit.”
 

By the time Carrie Bradshaw finished wondering whether we could ever truly know a man, the rest of us were already trying to decode an algorithm.

In the late 1990s, "Sex and the City" turned brunch into a confessional and dating into a contact sport. In a pre-swipe civilization, romance required courage, heels, and the emotional resilience to survive a landline answering machine. Today, somewhere between a push notification and a predictive text, love has been quietly outsourced to artificial intelligence. If Carrie were writing her column in 2026, she might not ask whether Mr. Big is emotionally available. She would ask whether his chatbot is.

Welcome to Techville, where desire meets data and Cupid has a coding bootcamp certificate.

The rise of AI-powered dating apps has been so swift that even our grandmothers are wondering what happened to handwritten love letters. In their place: machine-learning models trained on terabytes of flirtation. These apps promise optimized compatibility, real-time seduction tips, and, if you upgrade to premium, a “deep emotional simulation mode.” For a monthly fee, you can now receive affection calibrated to your attachment style.

It’s difficult not to admire the efficiency. After all, what is romance if not a series of poorly managed expectations? AI offers to manage them for you. It suggests when to text back (“not too eager, but not too aloof”), analyzes your date’s micro-expressions via uploaded selfies, and composes apologies that sound vaguely poetic but legally safe.

And yet, as in all great comedies, the punchline arrives uninvited.

Take Javier from Techville’s financial district. Tired of ghosting, he subscribed to an AI wingman app that promised to “maximize emotional ROI.” The algorithm instructed him to compliment his date’s “unique cognitive aura.” He did. She blinked twice and asked whether he was feeling well. The app later explained that the phrase tested well in beta trials among philosophy majors in Helsinki.

Then there’s Amira, who used an AI intimacy simulator during a dry spell. The chatbot was attentive, witty, and never forgot her coffee order. It quoted Rumi at midnight and reminded her to hydrate. After three weeks, she confessed she preferred the bot to her last three human relationships. “At least it updates,” she said.

We laugh, but there’s something quietly unsettling about it all. The philosopher Martin Buber once wrote, “All real living is meeting.” But what happens when the meeting is mediated by code? Are we still encountering another soul, or merely a well-trained mirror?

The companies behind these apps argue that AI democratizes intimacy. Shy individuals gain confidence. Long-distance couples maintain connection. People with disabilities explore desire without stigma. There is truth in this optimism. Technology has always expanded the borders of possibility. The printing press spread ideas; the smartphone spread attention spans thin.

But AI spreads something more delicate: emotional labor.

The trouble is not that AI participates in our romantic lives. The trouble begins when it replaces participation with prediction.

Rafael Hernandez de Santiago

Here lies the irony. In our quest to perfect communication, we risk perfecting its absence. The messiness of love — awkward pauses, misinterpreted jokes, the courage to say the wrong thing — cannot be beta-tested. It is precisely in our imperfection that intimacy takes root.

The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre warned: “Hell is other people.” If he were alive today, he might add: “Heaven is a well-configured chatbot.” No judgment. A chatbot never forgets your birthday, never leaves the toilet seat up, and never develops an inexplicable passion for cryptocurrency.

And yet. There is a quiet heroism in human unpredictability. An AI can simulate jealousy, but it cannot feel the sting of it. It can generate flirtation, but it does not risk rejection. It can optimize desire, but it does not tremble before it.

The new generation of these dating apps goes even further. They promise hyper-personalized virtual companions rendered in augmented reality. You can design their voice, their humor, even their political opinions. In other words, you can finally date someone who agrees with you about everything. Philosophers have long debated the nature of the ideal partner. Silicon Valley has decided the answer is: customizable.

But if love becomes a product, does it remain a mystery?

The trouble is not that AI participates in our romantic lives. The trouble begins when it replaces participation with prediction. When an app tells you who to love, how to love, and when to send a heart emoji, the ancient adventure of courtship becomes a guided tour.

And maybe that is the final irony in Techville’s romance with AI. We use machines to avoid heartbreak, only to discover that heartbreak was proof we were alive. We design apps to guarantee satisfaction, only to realize that longing is what made satisfaction meaningful.

If Carrie were here today, typing on a luminous tablet instead of a laptop, she might conclude: perhaps the question is not whether AI will change love. It already has. The question is whether we will still dare to love without it.

In the end, even in Techville, the most revolutionary act may be the simplest one: to risk saying something unscripted, unoptimized, and gloriously human.

After all, no app, however intelligent, has yet learned how to blush.

• Rafael Hernandez de Santiago, viscount of Espes, is a Spanish national residing in Saudi Arabia and working at the Gulf Research Center.
 

Sustainability has become a defining benchmark for national progress, economic resilience, and long-term competitiveness.

As countries accelerate their transition toward cleaner and more efficient energy systems, one reality is becoming increasingly clear: scaling sustainability is impossible without advanced energy storage.

Energy storage has shifted from a technical consideration to a strategic requirement. It is the mechanism that allows nations to convert renewable energy from an intermittent resource into a stable, reliable foundation for growth.

In the context of Saudi Arabia’s transformation, storage is emerging as one of the most critical enablers of the Kingdom’s longterm sustainability ambitions.

A new energy logic for a new era

For years, the global energy debate centered on generation — how to produce more power and how to produce it more cleanly.

But as renewable energy expands, the challenge has evolved.

Solar and wind do not always align with the rhythm of human activity or industrial demand. This creates a gap between when energy is produced and when it is needed.

Energy storage bridges that gap. By capturing excess energy during periods of high production and releasing it during peak demand, storage systems enhance grid stability, reduce reliance on fossilfuel backup plants, and support higher renewable penetration.

In practice, this means lower operational costs, improved reliability, and a more resilient national energy framework.

This shift in energy logic is not theoretical.

It is already reshaping how nations plan infrastructure, design industrial zones, and prepare for future demand.

Countries that fail to integrate storage into their energy strategies risk facing bottlenecks that limit their ability to scale renewables effectively.

Saudi Arabia’s strategic window

Saudi Arabia is uniquely positioned to lead this transformation.

Vision 2030 has created a national environment where innovation is not optional — it is essential.

The Kingdom’s renewable energy program is expanding rapidly, supported by gigaprojects that integrate storage technologies from the outset.

These projects are not only symbols of ambition; they are practical demonstrations of how storage can support largescale, sustainable development.

Yet the real opportunity lies in building a comprehensive national ecosystem for energy storage.

This ecosystem includes localized manufacturing, research and development, regulatory support, and strong industrial partnerships.

Together, these elements can position Saudi Arabia as a global hub for next generation storage solutions.

The Kingdom’s industrial capabilities, combined with its strategic geographic position and investment climate, give it a competitive advantage.

By moving early and decisively, Saudi Arabia can shape the regional market and influence global trends in storage technology.

A human-centered impact

While energy storage is often discussed in technical terms, its impact is deeply human.

Reliable, clean energy affects daily life in ways that are both visible and subtle.

It ensures hospitals remain powered, businesses operate without interruption, and homes stay cool during extreme heat.

It reduces emissions, improves air quality, and supports the digital infrastructure that modern economies depend on.

Storage is the unseen backbone that allows sustainability to move from policy to practice.

It is the infrastructure that ensures renewable energy is not just available, but dependable. And in a region where climate conditions can be extreme, this reliability is not a luxury — it is a necessity.

A personal observation from the field

In my work training Saudi technicians and engineers across the energy and industrial sectors, I have witnessed a powerful shift.

Young Saudis are not only eager to learn — they are driven by a clear sense of purpose.

They understand that the technologies they are mastering today will define the Kingdom’s energy landscape for decades to come.

This is why human capability development is inseparable from technological progress. A sustainable energy future requires a sustainable talent pipeline.

Saudi technicians and engineers will be the ones installing, operating, and advancing the storage systems that support the Kingdom’s long-term goals.

Their skills will form the professional base of Saudi Arabia’s energy future.

By investing in their training, we are not simply preparing individuals for jobs — we are building national capacity that will anchor the Kingdom’s competitiveness.

This investment in people is one of the most powerful forms of sustainability.

It ensures that the Kingdom’s energy transition is not dependent on external expertise but is driven by Saudi professionals who understand the local context, the national vision, and the long-term priorities of the country.

Technology advancing at pace

Globally, storage technologies are evolving rapidly. Lithium-ion batteries remain dominant, but new solutions are emerging, including sodium-ion, solid-state, and flow batteries, as well as hydrogen-based and thermal storage systems.

Each technology serves a distinct purpose, and the future will rely on a diversified portfolio rather than a single solution.

For Saudi Arabia, this technological diversity is an advantage.

It allows the Kingdom to invest strategically, localize manufacturing, and build competitive strength across multiple segments of the storage value chain.

It also creates opportunities for research institutions, universities, and training centers to develop specialized programs that prepare the workforce for emerging technologies.

Industrial and economic value creation

Energy storage is not only an environmental necessity — it is an economic opportunity.

Nations that invest early in storage manufacturing and supply chains will shape the next global energy economy. Saudi Arabia’s industrial ecosystem, supported by national funds and regulatory momentum, is well positioned to capture this value.

Localizing storage technologies can create high-value jobs, attract global partnerships, strengthen energy security, and support export-driven industries.

These outcomes align directly with the Kingdom’s longterm diversification strategy and reinforce its position as a leader in advanced industries.

A regional model for scalable sustainability

The Middle East is rapidly emerging as a center of energy innovation.

Saudi Arabia’s integrated approach — combining renewables, storage, hydrogen, and smart grid technologies — offers a model for scalable sustainability across the region.

A fully developed storage ecosystem would not only support national goals but also set a benchmark for neighboring markets.

A forward-looking national priority

As global energy systems evolve, the ability to scale sustainability will depend on how effectively nations integrate advanced storage solutions into their infrastructure and workforce.

For Saudi Arabia, energy storage is more than a technical requirement — it is a strategic capability that strengthens national resilience, accelerates economic diversification, and empowers a new generation of Saudi professionals.

The choices made today will shape the Kingdom’s competitive position for decades, and energy storage stands at the center of that transformation.

• Majid M Refae, chairman of the Saudi Polytechnic Institute for Renewable Energy
 

Artificial intelligence is rapidly integrating into nearly every aspect of modern life, yet few fields are feeling its impact as dramatically as the film industry.

For more than a century, great films have been the product of massive collaborative effort.

From scouting locations and building sets to coordinating actors, lighting, and sound, filmmaking has always been an intensely human endeavor.

On a set, with cameras rolling and a director shouting “action,” every member of the cast and crew moves in careful synchrony.

The late filmmaker Samuel Fuller once described filmmaking as “a battleground — love, hate, action, violence, death — in one word: emotion.”

It is precisely this emotional and often chaotic energy that has long defined cinema. However, with the arrival of AI-powered cinematography, that vibrant atmosphere is changing.

From prompts to production

The industry is currently undergoing a profound technological shift. AI-driven visual design platforms such as DALL-E, Midjourney, and OpenAI’s Sora are transforming the early stages of filmmaking.

Tasks that once required weeks of work — such as concept art, character design, and visual style development — can now be generated within minutes through simple text prompts.

This transformation extends far beyond pre-production. During filming and post-production, AI tools are increasingly capable of generating entire scenes, environments, and complex actions based on creative direction.

Filmmakers can now refine outputs and combine digital elements without ever picking up a traditional camera.

In conventional filmmaking, editing involves cutting and enhancing existing footage.

AI alters this process entirely. Instead of relying solely on recorded material, generative models trained on vast datasets can synthesize scenes, characters, and animations from scratch.

The rise of the virtual performer

The implications of these tools are significant. AI systems can transform a written prompt into complete visuals and movement automatically, accelerating creative experimentation and lowering production costs.

This democratization allows beginners to create high-quality video content without the need for expensive cameras, actors, or advanced editing skills.

Another major development is the emergence of virtual actors and AI-driven computer-generated imagery.

Using deep learning, filmmakers can digitally alter an actor’s appearance — making them appear decades younger or older with remarkable realism.

Many of these effects rely on Generative Adversarial Networks, which analyze thousands of facial expressions to recreate convincing human features.

Deepfake technology has taken this even further, allowing filmmakers to replace faces, resurrect historical figures, or create digital performers that are almost indistinguishable from real people.

Can a machine write a masterpiece?

Artificial intelligence has even entered the writers’ room. Using Natural Language Processing, AI tools can analyze patterns in successful screenplays to estimate audience engagement or generate dialogue that imitates a specific writer’s style.

Yet, despite these advances, AI still struggles with the essentials of the craft: originality, emotional depth, and the subtle nuance that human writers bring to storytelling.

This raises a fundamental question: Is AI-generated work truly authentic?

Cinema has always been a blend of art and technology. Masterpieces such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix Revolutions, and Titanic demonstrate how technology can expand storytelling possibilities.

But could AI produce a film with the emotional weight of The Godfather, Cast Away, or Saving Private Ryan?

For now, the answer is likely no. These films rely on deeply human performances and emotional nuances delivered by actors like Tom Hanks, Marlon Brando, and Al Pacino — qualities that machines cannot yet replicate.

A collaborative future

However, technology evolves quickly. As audiences grow familiar with AI-generated content, the possibility of a machine-assisted cinematic classic no longer seems far-fetched.

The future of filmmaking may not be a battle between humans and machines, but a collaboration— one where artificial intelligence expands the toolkit of storytelling while human creativity continues to give cinema its soul.

• Mai Anati is managing editor at The Jordan Times.
 

The divergence between the Paris AI Action Summit of 2025 and the New Delhi AI Impact Summit of 2026 represents more than a difference in signatory counts or diplomatic phrasing. 

It reflects a widening global schism: Is artificial intelligence a domain for coordinated cooperation under shared rules, or a battleground where great powers refuse any supranational constraints on their technological advantage? 

From Paris to Delhi, a multipolar governance landscape is taking shape — one in which the United States has signaled a clear stance: yes to voluntary coordination, but a firm no to binding “global governance.”

The Paris AI Action Summit sought to build on the momentum of Bletchley Park (the UK, 2023) and Seoul (South Korea, 2024), attempting to reconcile AI’s existential risks with its economic potential. Its core document, the “Statement on inclusive and sustainable artificial intelligence for people and the planet,” was endorsed by 58 countries, including France, China, and India.

However, the absence of the US and the UK as signatories weakened the prospect of a Western consensus. While the statement emphasized broad principles — inclusivity, sustainability, and narrowing the digital divide — Washington and London argued it lacked “operational clarity” and failed to sufficiently address national security imperatives.

Economically, Paris carried a dual message: a call for massive investment in Europe’s AI infrastructure — notably through the EU’s InvestAI initiative, which aimed to mobilize 200 billion euros — and a plea to reduce bureaucratic barriers to avoid falling behind the US and China. Politically, the summit reflected a European-led push for comprehensive standards. Yet, without American participation, its momentum faltered, leading analysts to label it a “missed opportunity.”

In the struggle over who will write the rules of tomorrow, the choice is simple: contribute to the drafting of the standards now, or be forced to import rules later that do not reflect local priorities.

Dr. Abdel-Hameed Nawar

This followed a path set by the Bletchley Park AI Summit, which focused on existential risks, and the Seoul AI Summit, which shifted the emphasis toward practical innovation and inclusivity. Together, these summits formed the early architecture that Paris sought to refine — before New Delhi expanded it into a broader developmental agenda.

The India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi (Feb. 18-19) adopted a different lens under the banner “AI for All.” 

Its central document, the New Delhi Declaration on AI Impact, secured a major diplomatic win: endorsement by 86 countries, including both the US and China.

The declaration broadened the global agenda to include digital infrastructure and social inclusion while maintaining a strictly voluntary, non-binding character. The US position here revealed strategic consistency: Washington rejected the Paris statement because it opened the door to supranational constraints that could limit regulatory autonomy. It embraced the New Delhi declaration precisely because it remained within the realm of "soft" coordination. This reflects a stable US policy — supporting multilateralism only when it preserves technological sovereignty and maximum flexibility in its competition with China.

The New Delhi summit also elevated the voice of the Global South, linking digital infrastructure to the empowerment of developing nations. Economically, the summit was a powerhouse, announcing more than $250 billion in commitments for infrastructure investments, with a specific focus on energy and efficiency.

Together, Paris and New Delhi have rebalanced the global conversation. Paris tied AI to safety and sustainability, while New Delhi added a developmental dimension. Yet the central challenge remains: the absence of binding mechanisms and the structural divide between European, American, and Chinese visions.

The world is gravitating toward distinct regulatory blocs: a stringent European model, a flexible US model, and a multipolar model emerging from the Global South. For policymakers in the Middle East and beyond, the lesson is clear. Nations must define their negotiating positions with care and participate early in shaping standards. In the struggle over who will write the rules of tomorrow, the choice is simple: contribute to the drafting of the standards now, or be forced to import rules later that do not reflect local priorities.

• Dr. Abdel-Hameed Nawar is an associate professor of economics at Cairo University.
 

By the time you read this, someone, somewhere, will have blamed artificial intelligence for something profoundly human.

A student used it to cheat. A company used it to cut corners. A government used it to surveil. A fraudster used it to deceive. The culprit, we are told, is the algorithm. But perhaps the real danger isn’t artificial intelligence. It is natural stupidity.

This is not a fashionable argument. In an era where headlines oscillate between utopia and apocalypse, nuance struggles for oxygen. AI is either our salvation or our extinction. Venture capitalists promise productivity miracles. Doomsayers warn of rogue systems plotting humanity’s demise. Panels are convened. Regulations drafted. Ethics boards assembled.

Yet amid all the noise, we risk misunderstanding the nature of the threat.

Artificial intelligence does not possess malice. It has no ego, no resentment, no ideology. It does not wake up offended, nor does it go to bed angry. It does not crave power or fear irrelevance. It does not spread misinformation because it prefers chaos to order. It does what it is designed and incentivized to do.

The uncomfortable truth is that the harm attributed to AI is, in most cases, a magnification of human flaws. Bias in algorithms mirrors bias in data, which mirrors bias in society. Disinformation campaigns scale because humans create and share falsehoods. Automation displaces workers because executives choose efficiency over reskilling. Surveillance expands because policymakers prioritize control over liberty. The machine may accelerate the impact. But the direction is set by us.

Was that AI run amok? Or was it a business model exploiting predictable human psychology?

Deepfakes can undermine trust. Automated bots can flood public discourse. AI-generated phishing emails can deceive more convincingly than their human-crafted predecessors. In the wrong hands, these tools can destabilize markets, reputations and even democracies. But the “wrong hands” belong to people.

Blaming AI for these outcomes is intellectually convenient. It externalizes responsibility. It suggests that the threat is an autonomous system beyond our control, rather than a reflection of our own incentives and governance failures.

Natural stupidity, on the other hand, is harder to regulate.

Stupidity in this context is not a lack of IQ. It is the failure to recognize limits of technology, of institutions, of ourselves.

Rafael Hernandez de Santiago

It manifests as short-termism in boardrooms, chasing quarterly earnings at the expense of long-term resilience. It appears as regulatory paralysis, policymakers either overreacting with blunt bans or underreacting with laissez-faire complacency. It shows up as digital illiteracy, users sharing fabricated content without scrutiny. Most dangerously, it thrives in overconfidence.

Stupidity in this context is not a lack of IQ. It is the failure to recognize limits of technology, of institutions, of ourselves.

The philosopher Dietrich Bonhoeffer once suggested that stupidity is more dangerous than malice because it resists reason. A malicious person can be confronted; a stupid one is convinced of their righteousness. In the age of AI, this insight feels prescient.

If we truly wish to mitigate the dangers of AI, we must address the human conditions that shape its deployment.

First, incentives matter. Companies will build and deploy systems aligned with profit unless regulation and market demand reward responsibility. Ethical guidelines without enforcement are public relations exercises. Transparency without accountability is theater.

Second, education is essential. Digital literacy should not be an optional skill but a civic necessity. Citizens must understand not only how to use AI tools, but how they work — their limitations, their biases, their susceptibility to manipulation. A society that cannot critically evaluate information is vulnerable regardless of the technology involved.

Third, governance must evolve. This does not mean stifling innovation with fear-driven prohibitions. It means crafting adaptive frameworks that balance experimentation with safeguards. Policymakers should collaborate with technologists, ethicists and civil society, not react after crises erupt.

Finally, humility is indispensable.

We must resist both techno-optimism and techno-panic. AI will not solve all our problems, nor will it inevitably destroy us. It is a tool — extraordinarily powerful, yes, but still a tool. Its trajectory will be determined less by silicon and more by character.

If misinformation spreads faster with AI, we must ask why truth spreads so slowly. If automation displaces workers, we must question why safety nets lag behind innovation. If deepfakes erode trust, we must examine why trust was so fragile to begin with.

AI is a mirror held up to humanity. It reflects our brilliance and our blind spots. It amplifies our creativity and our carelessness. It exposes the gap between our values and our behavior.

The real danger is not that machines will become more like humans. It is that humans, empowered by machines, will refuse to become wiser.

In the end, the challenge of AI is not technical but moral. It demands better judgment, stronger institutions and a renewed commitment to responsibility. We do not need to outsmart our machines nearly as much as we need to outgrow our own stupidity. And that, unlike code, cannot be debugged overnight.

• Rafael Hernandez de Santiago, viscount of Espes, is a Spanish national residing in Saudi Arabia and working at the Gulf Research Center.
 

Sustainable finance is at a new demanding stage. The early days were marked by environmental, social and governance, voluntary reports, and taxonomies, which placed emphasis on transparency and compliance in financial institutions and corporates. 

During this period, ESG became integrated into the mainstream, and the world of sustainable investment had over $35 trillion in assets in 2020 according to the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. Yet, there is growing recognition that disclosure alone is insufficient to drive real-world transformation. ESG ratings differ considerably, which makes them not the sole reliable source for sustainability performance indicators. 

This signals a structural shift. Sustainable finance is now in a position to leverage value-based capital formation rather than allocation driven by labels. In an environment of higher interest rates, capital is no longer cheap and indiscriminate. 

Investors increasingly expect not only economic returns but also developmental and climate results that are quantifiable. The next paradigm will therefore not be defined merely by the source of funds reported, but more importantly by what those funds construct — particularly in infrastructure and development finance. 

The first phase of sustainable finance focused on establishing compliance frameworks that required organizations to disclose financial information based on particular standards. 

The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures  established requirements for companies to disclose financial data together with risk information. However, while reporting standards advanced, actual business activities in many cases remained largely unchanged. 

Evidence now suggests that ESG disclosure does not automatically translate into improved environmental performance, nor does shareholder engagement alone necessarily result in systemic environmental change. Transparency was necessary, but it was not sufficient. 

The emerging phase — sustainable finance based on value — is concerned with productivity, resilience, and long-term asset value. According to a meta-analysis of more than 2,000 empirical studies, the relationship between ESG performance and financial performance is positive in most cases, but it becomes stronger when sustainability is integrated into core business models. True value creation involves allocating capital to assets that generate cash flows while delivering quantifiable societal outcomes. 

Macroeconomic conditions have reinforced this evolution. The period of low-interest rates masked inefficiencies in capital distribution. Since 2022, rising global interest rates have placed risk-adjusted returns back at the center of investor decision-making. The International Energy Agency states that total clean energy investment expanded to $1.8 trillion in 2023, yet the cost of financing renewable projects in emerging markets remains two to three times higher than in developed economies due to perceived risk. 

Achieving long-term climate and development results requires a value-based paradigm grounded in financial discipline, additionality, and de-risked infrastructure investment. 

Majed Al-Qatari

As a result, impact investments must compete on financial fundamentals. Impact funds differ in performance, highlighting the importance of financial discipline. Sustainable finance cannot rely solely on concessional narratives; it must demonstrate sustainable cash flows, asset resilience, and competitive returns. 

Nowhere is this shift more critical than in infrastructure. Infrastructure transitions are net-zero transitions. According to the IEA, more than $4 trillion annually is required by 2030 to achieve climate targets. Energy grids, transport systems, and water networks combine environmental, social, and economic value at scale. 

Infrastructure also aligns structurally with long-term capital. Its stable cash-flow characteristics match the liabilities of institutional investors. More importantly, infrastructure generates measurable outcomes: increased renewable energy capacity, quantifiable emissions reductions, and expanded essential service access for households. The asset-based model positions sustainable finance as a driver of measurable productivity gains rather than abstract commitments. 

Yet the constraint is not global liquidity. The amount of global capital is high; the level of global risk tolerance is low. According to the OECD, trillions of corporate funds remain on the sidelines due to policy uncertainty, currency fluctuations, and regulatory risk in developing markets. Blended finance structures demonstrate that when development banks assume first-loss risk, private capital follows. Multilateral development banks are able to mobilize multiple dollars of private investment for every dollar committed. The core constraint, therefore, is de-risking — not capital scarcity. 

This makes additionality central. Impact must be genuine: financing projects that otherwise would not exist. Government-supported venture funding drives innovation only when it targets genuinely constrained firms. 

Likewise, sustainable investment delivers impact only when it alters corporate cost of capital or investment decisions. Infrastructure and development finance offer stronger avenues for financial and developmental additionality because they operate in emerging, riskier, and underserved markets. 

Institutions such as the World Bank Group and the African Development Bank are increasingly structuring projects, mitigating risk, and crowding in private investors. Blended finance operations have mobilized private capital at record levels. Sovereign wealth funds and infrastructure funds are also increasing climate allocations, recognizing infrastructure as both a climate hedge and an inflation hedge. These actors are increasingly central in shaping climate and development outcomes. 

Ultimately, sustainable finance will be realized not through reporting sophistication alone, but through tangible asset formation and measurable outcomes. The next generation will be judged not merely by ESG scores, but by value created, infrastructure delivered, risks reduced, and private capital mobilized. Achieving long-term climate and development results requires a value-based paradigm grounded in financial discipline, additionality, and de-risked infrastructure investment. 

• Majed Al-Qatari is a sustainability leader, ecological engineer, and UN youth ambassador.
 

With their rapidly advancing economies, young and ambitious populations, and strategic access to both capital and cutting-edge technologies, GCC nations such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others have the potential to dramatically increase life expectancy through smart investments in longevity-focused healthcare systems.

Historically, longevity was seen as the result of personal health choices or access to advanced medical interventions. Today, government investments in areas such as advanced healthcare systems, preventive care, age-related technologies and healthier lifestyles can be the true catalysts for significant increases in life expectancy.

If GCC countries allocate just 1 to 2 percent of GDP toward these areas, the region could experience a rewarding longevity dividend, where life expectancy could rise by 2 to 4 years over the next two decades, transforming not just the health of their populations but also the economic landscape.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE already invest substantial resources in healthcare, which serves as a strong foundation for expanding longevity initiatives.

The UAE government currently spends around 3.5 percent of GDP on healthcare. This includes everything from state-of-the-art hospitals to cutting-edge medical research in fields like biotechnology, gene therapy and regenerative medicine.

Saudi Arabia spends approximately 5 to 6 percent of GDP on healthcare. The country is also heavily investing in healthcare modernization under its Vision 2030 plan. These investments are helping address the rise in chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease, which disproportionately affect the aging population.

When we talk about longevity in the context of public health investment, it is not just about extending life but also about improving quality of life, optimizing healthspan alongside lifespan. This can be achieved by targeting age-related diseases early, making preventive care a focal point of national healthcare systems and encouraging healthier lifestyles for all age groups.

GCC nations are in a prime position to take this step, given their ability to leverage wealth from oil and tourism industries, their growing healthcare infrastructure and their political will to embrace new technologies.

But how exactly can spending 1 to 2 percent of GDP yield such remarkable improvements in life expectancy?

Advancing healthcare systems

Investing in state-of-the-art medical infrastructure will ensure that people live longer, healthier lives. This includes expanding access to cutting-edge treatments and healthcare facilities focused on the prevention and treatment of age-related diseases like Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. It also means embracing digital health, telemedicine, AI-driven diagnostics and personalized treatment plans, which are already beginning to reshape healthcare systems across the region.

By focusing on precision medicine and integrating biomarker technologies that can predict and prevent age-related diseases, these investments can directly increase life expectancy while reducing the economic burden of healthcare in the long run.

Preventive care programs

A major driver of longevity is the ability to prevent disease before it occurs. Many of the top causes of mortality in the GCC, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, can be mitigated or managed with early detection, screening programs and public health education. With targeted investment in preventive care, governments can reduce the incidence of these diseases and ensure that people live longer, more active lives.

This includes implementing nationwide health awareness campaigns, improving access to preventive services like vaccinations and encouraging healthier lifestyle choices such as better diet and exercise habits through public policy.

Age-related technologies

The rapid development of age-related technologies, from biotech and regenerative medicine to robotics and AI, can extend both healthspan and lifespan. For example, stem cell therapies and gene editing could lead to breakthroughs in treating or even reversing age-related conditions. Smart homes and assistive technologies can also improve the quality of life for older people, allowing them to remain independent for longer.

Investments in age-tech, technologies that specifically focus on improving the lives of aging populations, will also help the GCC tackle the economic challenges posed by aging populations, such as pension systems and the cost of healthcare for older people.

Healthier lifestyles

Encouraging healthier lifestyles goes beyond healthcare spending. It is about creating environments that foster well-being. This includes urban planning that promotes active transportation, such as walking and cycling, and creating green spaces that encourage physical activity. Workplace wellness programs and national campaigns that promote mental health will ensure that people live more balanced, fulfilling lives as they age.

With the right investments in infrastructure and public policy, GCC countries can foster a culture of prevention and longevity, leading to a healthier, more vibrant society.

Beyond the obvious health benefits, investing in longevity is also an investment in economic productivity. A healthier, longer-living population means a more productive workforce, people are able to work for longer, contribute to the economy and remain active consumers for decades longer.

A 2 to 4 year increase in life expectancy could also have a positive impact on national productivity levels, potentially offsetting the cost of these investments with increased output and reduced healthcare costs in the long term.

• Dmitry Kaminskiy is general partner at Deep Knowledge Group.