Wole Olaoye, a veteran journalist and public relations consultant, raises urgent questions about the trajectory of artificial intelligence (AI) in a provocative piece titled Before the robot enslaves us all… The article underscores the dual nature of AI, highlighting its capacity to revolutionize society while warning of its potential to erode human agency and ethical boundaries. Olaoye’s analysis is framed within a broader historical context, drawing comparisons to past technological disruptions that challenged societal norms and human identity.
The author begins by juxtaposing AI with artificial insemination (AI), a 19th- and 20th-century innovation that sparked fears of reducing human reproduction to a mechanical process. Critics of artificial insemination, much like today’s AI skeptics, argued that such technologies threatened the sanctity of natural human creation. Olaoye notes that both innovations provoked existential debates about the role of technology in defining human uniqueness, with religious and conservative groups condemning them as violations of divine order. This historical parallel sets the stage for contemporary anxieties about AI’s impact on creativity, empathy, and decision-making.
Olaoye emphasizes that AI’s influence extends beyond technical concerns, touching on cultural and philosophical dimensions. He cites the rise of deepfakes, synthetic media, and algorithmic deception as examples of how AI could destabilize trust in information. In Nigeria’s upcoming election season, these risks are particularly acute, as voters may struggle to discern authentic content from machine-generated falsehoods. The article warns that AI-driven misinformation could exacerbate political polarization and erode democratic processes.
The author also highlights global fears of AI’s misuse in critical infrastructure. Autonomous AI agents or advanced malware could launch coordinated cyberattacks on power grids, water treatment facilities, and transportation networks, causing societal paralysis. Olaoye references apocalyptic scenarios where AI could be weaponized to release drug-resistant pathogens or trigger uncontrollable warfare through autonomous drones or nuclear command systems. These possibilities, he argues, demand immediate regulatory action to prevent catastrophic outcomes.
Olaoye draws on the teachings of Pope Leo XIV, whose 2026 encyclical Magnifica Humanitas addressed the ethical implications of AI. The pontiff warned against a technocratic mindset that reduces human value to productivity and efficiency, comparing unchecked AI development to the biblical Tower of Babel. He advocated for a communal approach to technology, inspired by the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls under Nehemiah, to ensure AI serves humanity rather than subjugating it. The Pope also criticized the delegation of battlefield decisions to machines, citing the Middle East conflict as a cautionary example of AI’s role in normalizing mass violence.
Islamic perspectives on AI, as outlined in the article, emphasize its permissibility (halal) when used for human benefit but prohibit (haram) its application in deception or harm. Olaoye notes that both religious traditions stress the importance of human accountability in AI development, cautioning against the commodification of life and the erosion of privacy through mass surveillance and social credit systems. These frameworks, he argues, provide moral guidance for navigating AI’s complex ethical landscape.
The article also addresses the economic and social risks of AI, including mass job displacement and the concentration of technological power in private entities. Olaoye warns that unregulated AI could deepen inequality, as workers are replaced by automated systems while a few corporations monopolize data and digital tools. He calls for AI to be treated as a common good, managed through global regulatory frameworks that prioritize solidarity and equitable access.
Olaoye’s analysis extends to the psychological toll of AI, citing concerns about over-reliance on technology for critical thinking and governance. He argues that societies risk losing the ability to function if systems fail, creating a dependency that undermines resilience. This dependency, he warns, could lead to a dystopian future where human autonomy is subordinated to machine logic, echoing the themes of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984.
The author concludes with a call for the United Nations to establish an AI watchdog, modeled after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to set transparency standards and monitor AI’s development. Olaoye stresses that without such oversight, AI could “game us,” reducing humanity to “helpless victims” of its “macabre pyrotechnics.” He underscores the urgency of the issue, stating, “Woe unto that land whose slave master is a robot!”
The article’s exploration of AI’s risks is contextualized within Nigeria’s socio-political landscape, where technological advancements often outpace regulatory frameworks. Olaoye’s warnings resonate with local concerns about misinformation, cybersecurity, and the ethical use of emerging technologies. His work highlights the need for African nations to engage proactively in global AI governance discussions to ensure their interests are represented.
While the piece does not provide direct quotes from Nigerian officials or experts, it implicitly critiques the country’s preparedness for AI’s challenges. The absence of local voices in the discussion reflects a broader gap in Nigeria’s policy discourse on technology, which Olaoye suggests must be addressed to prevent the country from falling behind in the global AI race.
Olaoye’s background as a journalist and PR consultant lends credibility to his analysis, though the article lacks citations for specific claims about AI’s potential threats. This omission, while not uncommon in opinion pieces, may limit the depth of the argument for readers seeking empirical evidence. Nonetheless, the article serves as a thought-provoking contribution to the global conversation on AI ethics.
The piece also touches on the intersection of AI and religion, a topic that remains underexplored in many African contexts. By referencing the Pope’s encyclical and Islamic teachings, Olaoye bridges technological and spiritual perspectives, offering a holistic view of AI’s implications. This approach could inspire further dialogue on how religious and cultural values inform AI governance in diverse societies.
Olaoye’s call for international cooperation aligns with growing global efforts to regulate AI. However, the article does not delve into the practical challenges of establishing a UN watchdog, such as geopolitical tensions or the reluctance of tech giants to cede control. These complexities, while beyond the scope of the piece, are critical to addressing AI’s risks effectively.
The article’s tone is cautionary yet hopeful, emphasizing the need for proactive measures to harness AI’s benefits while mitigating its dangers. Olaoye’s concluding warning—“Woe unto that land whose slave master is a robot!”—serves as a stark reminder of the stakes involved in shaping AI’s future. His work underscores the importance of balancing innovation with ethical responsibility in an increasingly automated world.
Olaoye’s piece is part of a broader series in Premium Times that examines Nigeria’s technological and social challenges. The article’s publication highlights the newspaper’s commitment to covering emerging issues that impact the country’s development. By addressing AI’s risks, Premium Times contributes to a more informed public discourse on technology’s role in shaping Nigeria’s future.
The article’s structure, while dense with ideas, could benefit from clearer segmentation to enhance readability. Nonetheless, its comprehensive exploration of AI’s historical, ethical, and practical dimensions makes it a valuable resource for readers seeking to understand the complexities of this transformative technology.