Rethinking Tech

AI doesn't need to be correct to change the way we think -- it only needs to sound convincing.In this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna sits down with AI philosopher and author Sune Selsbæk-Reitz to discuss his new book, Promptism, and a question that is becoming increasingly urgent: what happens when we mistake fluent AI responses for genuine knowledge?Rather than focusing on AI safety in the traditional sense, this conversation explores something far more subtle - how large language models may be reshaping human judgment, critical thinking, education, and even our relationship with truth.As AI becomes embedded into search engines, workplaces, schools, and everyday decision-making, are we outsourcing more than just tasks? Are we outsourcing thinking itself?In this episode, Aparna and Sune discuss:

• why people naturally trust confident AI responses;
• the difference between information and understanding;
• why AI fluency is often mistaken for expertise;
• how ChatGPT and other AI systems influence human judgment;
• what "Promptism" means and why it matters;
• whether AI is changing how we learn, reason, and make decisions;
• how to use AI without surrendering critical thinking; and, above all else,
• why this matters

The future of AI isn't just about better models—it's about whether humans continue to question, interpret, and think independently, or whether we slowly begin accepting machine-generated language as authority simply because it is well written.And that may be one of the most important questions of the AI era.🎙 About Rethinking TechRethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics through long-form conversations with researchers, founders, policymakers, and industry leaders shaping the future.

President Trump traveled to China to meet President Xi.

But instead of a major breakthrough, the summit revealed something more important: the balance of power between the US and China may be shifting.

In this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack what the Trump-Xi summit means for AI, Taiwan, Nvidia chips, rare earth minerals, trade, tariffs, global markets, and the future of US-China relations.

At the center of this conversation is a deeper question: did China just show that it no longer needs to negotiate like the weaker party?

What this episode explores

• What happened at the Trump-Xi summit in China
• Why there were fewer major announcements than expected
• What China’s response to Nvidia H200 chips reveals about its AI strategy
• Why Taiwan remains the most dangerous issue in US-China relations
• Whether Trump’s position on Taiwan is softening
• How AI governance became part of the US-China conversation
• Why tech CEOs like Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, and Tim Cook are now part of geopolitical diplomacy
• What this means for Europe, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, the Gulf, and the Global South

Why this matters

The US-China relationship shapes almost every major issue in technology and geopolitics.

AI chips.
Rare earth minerals.
Taiwan.
Tariffs.
Supply chains.
Russia.
Iran.
Global markets.
AI governance.

So when Trump and Xi meet, the real question is not only what deals they announce.

It is who walks away with leverage.

China’s reaction to Nvidia’s H200 chips suggests Beijing may be playing a longer game: building an AI ecosystem that depends less on American technology. At the same time, Taiwan remains the issue China is putting directly on the table.

This episode asks whether the summit was a diplomatic reset — or a signal that the global power balance is moving in China’s direction.

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.

The NHS is working with companies like Palantir on its Federated Data Platform.

But the concern is bigger than software.

In this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack why Palantir’s role in NHS data infrastructure has raised serious questions about UK patient privacy, health data sovereignty, US tech power, and whether sensitive medical records could become part of a much larger AI and analytics play.

At the center of this conversation is a deeper question: who should control the infrastructure behind a national health system — and what happens when that infrastructure is built by a foreign technology company?

What this episode explores

• Why Palantir is involved in the NHS Federated Data Platform
• What access to identifiable UK patient data could mean
• Why UK citizens and legislators have raised concerns
• Whether NHS health data could flow toward US interests
• Why health data is so valuable for AI, analytics, and future products
• How governments become dependent on foreign tech platforms
• Why this debate is about sovereignty, not just efficiency

Why this matters

Health data is some of the most sensitive data a person has.

It can reveal diagnoses, treatments, family history, risk factors, disabilities, mental health, reproductive health, and more.

So when national healthcare systems modernize their data infrastructure, the public deserves to know what is being exchanged.

Who can access the data?
Where can it go?
Can it improve private AI systems?
Can foreign governments benefit from it?
And can citizens meaningfully opt out?

The NHS may need better data systems.

But the real issue is whether modernization should require handing critical health infrastructure to powerful foreign tech companies.

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.

Instagram has removed end-to-end encryption for direct messages.

Meta says the reason is low adoption — and that users who want encrypted messaging can use WhatsApp instead.

But in this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack why this is about much more than a product setting. It is about privacy defaults, government pressure, child safety laws, platform strategy, and the future of private messaging online.

At the center of this conversation is a deeper question: should private messages stay private by default, or are governments and platforms moving toward a world where digital communication is readable by design?

What this episode explores

• Why Instagram removed end-to-end encryption for DMs
• How privacy defaults shape what users actually get
• Why “low adoption” may not explain the full story
• How governments are pressuring platforms over encrypted messaging
• Why child safety laws are central to the encryption debate
• What this means for WhatsApp, Signal, and private communication
• Whether privacy should be treated as a right or a feature

Why this matters

Most people do not search through settings to turn privacy protections on.

They use whatever default the platform gives them.

So when encryption is optional, hidden, or quietly removed, many users may not realize their messages are less private than they assumed.

This matters because the fight over end-to-end encryption is becoming one of the biggest battles in tech policy. Governments argue they need access to fight crime and protect children. Privacy advocates argue that weakening encryption creates surveillance risks for everyone.

Instagram may be the latest example.

But the bigger issue is whether private messaging will survive in a world where governments want access, platforms want flexibility, and users are rarely told what changed.

The transcript focuses on Instagram removing end-to-end encryption from DMs, Meta’s “low adoption” explanation, the role of privacy defaults, government pressure, child safety arguments, and the broader question of whether private communication should remain protected online.

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.

Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI was dismissed.

But the bigger story is not who won this round in court.

In this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack what the Musk vs OpenAI lawsuit reveals about AI power, corporate structure, billionaire rivalries, and the uncomfortable question at the center of the industry: who really controls the future of artificial intelligence?

At the heart of the case is OpenAI’s transition from nonprofit lab to for-profit powerhouse — and whether an organization built around a public-interest mission can remain accountable once billions of dollars, investors, private contracts, and strategic competition enter the picture.

What this episode explores

• Why Elon Musk sued Sam Altman and OpenAI
• Why the case was dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds
• What the lawsuit reveals about OpenAI’s nonprofit-to-for-profit transition
• How billionaire founders and investors shape the AI industry behind closed doors
• Why the line between principle and business strategy is hard to separate
• What this fight means for AI governance, accountability, and public trust

Why this matters

OpenAI began with a mission to build artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.

But as AI becomes one of the most valuable and powerful industries in the world, public-interest language can collide with private incentives.

This lawsuit may have been dismissed on a legal technicality, but the deeper questions remain.

Who gets to control AI?
Who benefits from it?
And what happens when the future of a world-changing technology is shaped by private deals most people will never see?

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.

Ford has filed patents for technology that could let vehicles decide whether a driver is fit to be behind the wheel.

On paper, this sounds like road safety.

But in this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack why AI-powered driver monitoring raises much bigger questions about privacy, control, monetization, and whether our cars are becoming surveillance devices.

At the center of this conversation is a deeper question: should your vehicle be allowed to watch you, judge you, and potentially stop you from driving?

What this episode explores

• Ford’s AI driver monitoring patents
• Why in-car cameras are being framed as a safety feature
• How vehicles could monitor alertness, fatigue, or impairment
• Whether your car should be able to block you from driving
• How driver data could be monetized through ads or services
• Why police or governments may eventually want access to vehicle data
• How safety technology can become surveillance infrastructure

Why this matters

Cars have long represented freedom.

But as vehicles become more connected, automated, and data-driven, that freedom is changing.

A car may soon be able to monitor your face, assess your attention, collect behavioral data, and decide whether you are safe to drive. That could prevent accidents and save lives.

But it could also create a new kind of surveillance: one that sits inside your own vehicle.

The real issue is not whether road safety matters.

It is whether safety becomes the justification for turning cars into data collection platforms.

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.

For 150 years, oil helped define global power.

Now, the UAE is betting that the next great resource is AI.

In this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack the UAE’s attempt to shift from a petrostate economy toward an AI-driven future — through education, data centers, sovereign wealth, energy infrastructure, and major partnerships with US tech companies.

At the center of this conversation is a deeper question: can countries that built power through oil become indispensable in the AI economy? Or will they become service providers to the US and China, who still control much of the technology stack?

What this episode explores

• Why the UAE is investing heavily in AI education and infrastructure
• How oil states are trying to build post-oil economic strategies
• Why data centers, energy, land, and political stability matter in the AI race
• Whether the Middle East can become a serious AI infrastructure hub
• Why full AI sovereignty may be impossible for most countries
• How countries can become essential without building the best AI models
• What this means for workers, students, and ordinary people

Why this matters

AI is not just code.

It depends on energy, land, data centers, chips, minerals, supply chains, and geopolitical alliances.

That means countries are not only deciding whether to use AI. They are deciding where they fit in the next global economy.

Some may build models. Some may control minerals. Some may provide energy. Some may host data centers. Some may turn AI into services. And many may be forced to choose between US and Chinese technology ecosystems.

The countries that succeed may not be the ones that build the best AI.

They may be the ones that become impossible to ignore.

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.

Kindergarteners in the UAE are learning AI before they learn cursive.

But this story is about much more than technology in classrooms.

In this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack why the UAE is introducing AI education at such a young age — and how this fits into a much bigger national strategy to build a post-oil future.

At the center of this conversation is a deeper question: should every country try to compete in the AI race, or should governments focus on the specific role they can realistically play in an AI-driven world?

What this episode explores

• Why the UAE is teaching AI to young children
• How AI education fits into a post-oil economic strategy
• Why petrostates may have an advantage in the AI race
• Whether most countries can realistically compete with the US and China
• Why some governments may be chasing AI as a shiny object
• How countries can find a unique role instead of trying to become the next Silicon Valley

Why this matters

AI is becoming part of national strategy.

Not just for companies, but for governments trying to decide what their economies should become.

The UAE has the capital to make a bold bet: build an AI-ready workforce from the ground up and position itself as a future talent pipeline.

But many other countries face a harder choice. They may not have the money, infrastructure, energy, or institutions to compete at the top of the AI race.

So the real question is not whether every country should “do AI.”

It is whether they can find the part of the AI economy where they can actually win.

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.

Nigeria dropped a $32 million fine against Meta.

But the bigger story is not just about one company, one country, or one privacy case.

In this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack why many developing countries struggle to regulate Big Tech — not because the issues are unclear, but because the power imbalance is so difficult to overcome.

At the center of this conversation is a deeper question: what happens when platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram become essential infrastructure for communication, business, politics, and daily life? And if a government pushes too hard, does Big Tech have the ultimate leverage — the ability to leave?

What this episode explores

• Why Nigeria dropped Meta’s $32 million data privacy fine
• How Big Tech benefits when enforcement never fully lands
• Why developing countries often negotiate from a weaker economic position
• How platforms become essential infrastructure for local businesses and communities
• Why governments may fear public backlash if major tech services disappear
• How lobbying, pressure, corruption, and dependency can shape tech regulation

Why this matters

For many countries, Big Tech is not optional.

It is how people communicate, sell, organize, advertise, learn, and stay connected.

That dependency gives companies enormous leverage. A government may want to enforce privacy laws, competition rules, or platform accountability — but if the platform can threaten to reduce services or leave, enforcement becomes politically and economically risky.

So the issue is not just whether countries have laws.

It is whether they have enough bargaining power to make those laws matter.

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.

US tech companies helped build some of the most sophisticated surveillance systems in the world.

And they did it for profit.

In this episode of Rethinking Tech, Aparna and Harinda unpack how American companies reportedly pitched technology to Chinese police as tools for population control — and why this story is not only about China.

At the center of this conversation is a deeper question: when surveillance becomes a business opportunity, can democracies really assume these tools will stay somewhere else?

What this episode explores

• How American tech companies became involved in China’s surveillance infrastructure
• Why surveillance technology became a profitable business model
• How tools developed for policing and control can move across borders
• Why similar surveillance practices are appearing in the US, UK, EU, and other democracies
• How Big Tech companies are becoming geopolitical actors
• Whether the relationship between governments and tech companies is becoming harder to separate

Why this matters

Mass surveillance does not always begin with ideology.

Sometimes it begins with a contract.

A database. A policing tool. A social scoring system. A surveillance camera. A platform that makes it easier to classify, track, and control people.

Once those systems are built, they rarely stay contained. The same technologies that help one government monitor its citizens can be repackaged, resold, and normalized elsewhere.

And as American Big Tech becomes more closely aligned with government power, the question is no longer just what these companies are building.

It is who they are building it for — and who ends up being watched.

About Rethinking Tech

Rethinking Tech explores the intersection of technology, geopolitics, business, and ethics — focusing on how systems actually work, not just how they’re talked about.