Technological progress has accompanied humanity since ancient times, but in the last two centuries, it has accelerated at an unprecedented rate. While some see it as a panacea – a cure for diseases, a solution to climate problems, and a path to prosperity – others feel growing concerns. Should we be afraid of technology? And is it truly desirable for progress to move at the speed we are currently experiencing? This question requires a dialectical perspective: recognizing both the enormous benefits and the serious risks that it entails.

History provides clear parallels. At the end of World War II, Nazi Germany desperately tried to reverse its fate through so-called "wonder weapons." The most famous were the V-2 rockets, the first ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets hundreds of kilometers away. These rockets, developed under the leadership of Wernher von Braun, brought terror to the London civilian population, but also laid the foundation for modern astronautics. Similarly, the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters represented a revolution in aviation – they were faster than anything the Allies had available. And we must not forget the early helicopters, such as the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which demonstrated the potential of vertical flight. These technologies emerged in a context of despair and evil, yet they influenced post-war technological development. Von Braun and his team were transferred to the United States after the war as part of Operation Paperclip and participated in the development of the American space program. However, it would be a mistake to claim that war itself creates progress. The V-2 rockets came at an enormous human and material cost, and their military contribution was limited. History rather shows that some technologies can later be used for peaceful purposes, without justifying the circumstances of their creation.

A similar story can be seen in the period of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The arms race led to massive investments in science. The Soviet Sputnik in 1957 shocked the West and triggered an American response in the form of NASA. Intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, satellites – all of this was motivated by fear of the enemy. However, the result was not only the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction, but also a revolution in telecommunications, computers, and materials science. The Internet itself has its roots in ARPANET, a project of the U.S. Department of Defense. The arms race undoubtedly accelerated some technological innovations, but it also consumed enormous resources and brought the world several times to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. Therefore, technological progress cannot automatically be considered proof of the correctness of the political rivalry that triggered it.

The culmination of this trend was the "Star Wars" project in the 1980s – the Strategic Defense Initiative of President Ronald Reagan. The goal was to create a space shield against Soviet missiles using lasers, particle weapons, and satellites. The project was technologically groundbreaking, but also extremely controversial. Critics called it destabilizing and unrealistic. To this day, there are debates about how much it actually contributed to the weakening of the Soviet Union. Some historians emphasize its psychological and economic impact, while others point primarily to the structural problems of the Soviet economy. Nevertheless, the project became a symbol of how technological competition can influence geopolitical events. At the same time, it laid the foundation for modern missile defense and the development of technologies that we use today in the civilian sector – from GPS to advanced sensors.

These historical examples show that rapid technological progress often arises in crisis and conflict situations. War and competition act as a catalyst. However, the question remains: Is this desirable even today?

Currently, we are experiencing a similar frenzy surrounding artificial intelligence (AI). Just as the V-2 rockets or the Me 262 aircraft, AI represents a double-edged sword. On one hand, there is enormous potential. AI is already helping in medicine to diagnose certain types of cancer, optimizing logistics chains, and accelerating the research of new drugs. However, its significance lies not only in the automation of individual tasks. Artificial intelligence is gradually becoming a new infrastructure for the economy, similar to electricity or the internet. Countries that are able to combine powerful models, sufficient energy, and semiconductor technology can gain a significant strategic advantage. The debate about AI is therefore not only technological, but increasingly geopolitical.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns. Just as "wonder weapons" could prolong the Nazi agony, AI can be used by authoritarian regimes for mass surveillance, disinformation, and autonomous weapons. "Killer robots" – autonomous drones capable of making decisions about death without human intervention – are already being tested. However, it is not only about the possibility of job losses. AI can fundamentally change the very nature of work. Not only routine manual professions are threatened, but increasingly also activities that were previously considered the domain of educated professionals – from translators to legal assistants and analysts. Society may therefore find itself in a situation where it has to rethink how to distribute the economic benefits of technological progress. And the deepest concern relates to so-called AGI (artificial general intelligence) – a system that would surpass human intelligence in all areas. If such a system were to escape control, scenarios that we know from science fiction could occur, but which are now being seriously discussed by scientists such as Geoffrey Hinton or Stuart Russell.

The speed of progress plays a key role here. In the past, it took decades for new technologies to become fully established and for society to adapt to them. Today, AI is evolving monthly. Companies like OpenAI, Google, or xAI are competing in a race that in many ways resembles the Cold War. The difference is that today it is not only about the competition between individual companies, but also about the competition between the United States, China, and the European Union. Access to computing power, data, energy, and advanced chips is becoming a matter of national security and geopolitical influence. This speed brings innovation, but also a lack of time for ethical reflection, regulation, and social adaptation. History teaches us that technology without control can lead to destruction. The atomic bomb was also a "wonder weapon" that ended the war, but left a legacy of fear.

For the Czech Republic, the debate about artificial intelligence is not just a theoretical issue. The Czech economy is heavily reliant on industry, automotive manufacturing, and technical professions. Automation and AI can increase the competitiveness of companies, but at the same time, they raise questions about the future of some jobs. Therefore, the challenge is not only to develop new technologies, but also for the education system and the state to prepare employees for the changing conditions of the labor market. However, this preparation must not be limited to the state system. It also requires a fundamental shift in an individual's metacognition. In the age of artificial intelligence, our personal development should not focus solely on accumulating factual knowledge that a machine can process in a fraction of a second, but on developing abilities that remain the exclusive domain of humans. This primarily includes critical thinking, moral judgment in complex situations, and the ability to connect different fields. In the future, the winner will not be the one who competes with technology, but the one who learns to use artificial intelligence as a lever for their own creativity and empathy. The future of work is therefore not just a matter of state strategy, but primarily of personal adaptation and the ability of individuals to become architects of their own synergistic relationship with machines. In this sense, the future of AI will not be decided only in the laboratories of Silicon Valley, but also in schools, companies, and institutions of European countries, including the Czech Republic.

A dialectical perspective requires more than just finding a balance between benefits and risks. It also requires understanding that technology itself does not determine the course of history. We should not artificially hinder progress – this would lead to lagging behind and a loss of competitiveness. Countries that close themselves off from AI would fare like the Soviet Union in the 1980s. However, we must acknowledge that, in the context of current geopolitical competition, implementing such frameworks is extremely difficult. We are in a situation that game theory describes as the prisoner's dilemma. Each major power is aware of the risks associated with uncontrolled development of artificial intelligence, but none of them can afford to stop first, for fear of falling behind in the technological and strategic race. This mutual distrust and the logic of an arms race represent the biggest obstacle to truly effective global regulation. Ethics, transparency of algorithms, data protection, and the responsibility of developers must go hand in hand with innovation.

We should be afraid of technology – not with a paralyzing fear, but with a vigilant respect. Just as V-2 rockets brought both destruction and Apollo 11, AI can lead to either utopia or dystopia. The speed of progress is important for solving acute problems facing humanity, such as energy, disease, or poverty, but it must not be unrestrained. The key is not only to develop better technologies, but primarily the quality of institutions, political decisions, and social values that guide their use. The future is not predetermined by algorithms, and whether AI becomes a tool for prosperity or a source of conflict will ultimately not be decided by machines, but by people through their goals and the boundaries that we, as a society, decide to maintain.

Prokop Stach