{"id":49798,"topic":"ai","source":"Council on Foreign Relations","title":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. - Council on Foreign Relations","url":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","url_hash":"0649b704752613aad6ee1284de70a1f7f02172e9","author":"","summary":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. Council on Foreign Relations","content":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035. The experts disagreed on almost everything, but what they did agree on was alarming: no one is prepared to govern the AI capabilities that could be coming.\nExperts Agree That Governance Is Failing\nMore than 80 percent of respondents expect that AI governance will be fragmented. Only 5 percent anticipate that domestic institutions, such as regulatory bodies and courts, will keep up with the pace of AI development.\nA U.S.-China bilateral agreement is the path experts see as the most likely option to produce a binding governance agreement—a dim prospect, given the state of U.S.-China relations, and one that would leave most of the world on the sidelines.\nMeanwhile, more than 70 percent of respondents say a serious AI accident is the most likely trigger for change. Taken together, those findings suggest that things will get worse before they start to get better.\nExperts Are Genuinely (and Revealingly) Split on Who Will Build Frontier AI\nRespondents came to no clear consensus on how concentrated frontier AI will be in 2035. About half (46 percent) expect the ability to develop frontier AI capabilities to remain in the hands of a few actors; 54 percent predict it will diffuse to dozens of states and nonstate actors. Few experts land between those options.\nThat polarization likely reflects two incompatible views on how AI will develop. One group expects scaling laws to hold, and that increases in model size, data, and computing power will reliably translate to improvements in AI performance, keeping frontier AI development costly and, therefore, concentrated. The other expects that new models, algorithms, chips, or other technological breakthroughs will make frontier AI models smaller, cheaper, and more accessible to more developers.\nThe economic stakes of frontier AI development are considerable. Most experts (68 percent) expect productivity gains from AI to concentrate among advanced economies or a small number of private actors. Experts are skeptical that new alliances or political strategy will change that calculus for the Global South: 64 percent say receiving meaningful benefits from AI would require a fundamental shift in how AI is built—one that moves away from models demanding enormous data, energy, and compute, and toward alternatives that are less resource intensive.\nPower Is Already Shifting From States to Labs\nAlmost 70 percent of respondents believe frontier AI labs will be the most powerful nonstate actors by 2035, and 75 percent expect nonstate actors to gain leverage over the state.\nThose predictions are already coming true: at the Group of Seven Summit in June 2026, world leaders were joined by the CEOs of OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, Mistral, and other companies to discuss AI governance, AI infrastructure, and international stability. Respondents would not have been surprised that the labs had a seat at the table, but they would have worried about what their presence means for governance. Along with labor market disruption and democratic backsliding, respondents identified regulatory capture as one of their top concerns, fearing AI labs will gain power over the governments that are meant to oversee them.\nWhere Things Stand\nAs the survey results highlight, experts broadly agree that the world is navigating profound uncertainty without agreed-upon rules or institutions that can ameliorate the social, political, economic, and strategic instability that will accompany rapid AI development and deployment. Experts are split over where AI is heading, but nearly unanimous that no one is steering. Frontier AI labs have the most power and expertise, but they, so far, remain unaccountable to governments or the publics they affect.\nThis work represents the views solely of the author(s). The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.","image_url":"https://assets.cfr.org/images/t_og_image_landscape/v1785348480/AI-governance-blog/AI-governance-blog.jpg","lang":"en","published_at":"2026-07-30T13:30:00+00:00","fetched_at":"2026-07-30T14:15:04+00:00","status":"read","starred":0,"extract_state":"ok","summary_auto":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035.","cluster_id":null,"extract_retries":0,"extract_error":null,"contract_version":"news_item.v1","format_contract_version":"news_item_formats.v1","dedup_url":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412,"usable_text_length":4343,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412}},"news_item":{"id":49798,"canonical_url":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","source_url":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","title":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. - Council on Foreign Relations","source_name":"Council on Foreign Relations","author":null,"published_at":"2026-07-30T13:30:00+00:00","locale":"en","topic":"ai","tags":[],"rss_summary":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. Council on Foreign Relations","full_text":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035. The experts disagreed on almost everything, but what they did agree on was alarming: no one is prepared to govern the AI capabilities that could be coming.\nExperts Agree That Governance Is Failing\nMore than 80 percent of respondents expect that AI governance will be fragmented. Only 5 percent anticipate that domestic institutions, such as regulatory bodies and courts, will keep up with the pace of AI development.\nA U.S.-China bilateral agreement is the path experts see as the most likely option to produce a binding governance agreement—a dim prospect, given the state of U.S.-China relations, and one that would leave most of the world on the sidelines.\nMeanwhile, more than 70 percent of respondents say a serious AI accident is the most likely trigger for change. Taken together, those findings suggest that things will get worse before they start to get better.\nExperts Are Genuinely (and Revealingly) Split on Who Will Build Frontier AI\nRespondents came to no clear consensus on how concentrated frontier AI will be in 2035. About half (46 percent) expect the ability to develop frontier AI capabilities to remain in the hands of a few actors; 54 percent predict it will diffuse to dozens of states and nonstate actors. Few experts land between those options.\nThat polarization likely reflects two incompatible views on how AI will develop. One group expects scaling laws to hold, and that increases in model size, data, and computing power will reliably translate to improvements in AI performance, keeping frontier AI development costly and, therefore, concentrated. The other expects that new models, algorithms, chips, or other technological breakthroughs will make frontier AI models smaller, cheaper, and more accessible to more developers.\nThe economic stakes of frontier AI development are considerable. Most experts (68 percent) expect productivity gains from AI to concentrate among advanced economies or a small number of private actors. Experts are skeptical that new alliances or political strategy will change that calculus for the Global South: 64 percent say receiving meaningful benefits from AI would require a fundamental shift in how AI is built—one that moves away from models demanding enormous data, energy, and compute, and toward alternatives that are less resource intensive.\nPower Is Already Shifting From States to Labs\nAlmost 70 percent of respondents believe frontier AI labs will be the most powerful nonstate actors by 2035, and 75 percent expect nonstate actors to gain leverage over the state.\nThose predictions are already coming true: at the Group of Seven Summit in June 2026, world leaders were joined by the CEOs of OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, Mistral, and other companies to discuss AI governance, AI infrastructure, and international stability. Respondents would not have been surprised that the labs had a seat at the table, but they would have worried about what their presence means for governance. Along with labor market disruption and democratic backsliding, respondents identified regulatory capture as one of their top concerns, fearing AI labs will gain power over the governments that are meant to oversee them.\nWhere Things Stand\nAs the survey results highlight, experts broadly agree that the world is navigating profound uncertainty without agreed-upon rules or institutions that can ameliorate the social, political, economic, and strategic instability that will accompany rapid AI development and deployment. Experts are split over where AI is heading, but nearly unanimous that no one is steering. Frontier AI labs have the most power and expertise, but they, so far, remain unaccountable to governments or the publics they affect.\nThis work represents the views solely of the author(s). The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.","excerpt":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035.","extraction":{"state":"ok","confidence":0.9,"error":null,"explanation":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","diagnostics_url":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412,"usable_text_length":4343,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412}}},"display_formats":["compact","card","full","digest_section","json"]},"daily_stack_record":{"title":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. - Council on Foreign Relations","url":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","summary":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035.","source":"Council on Foreign Relations","date":"2026-07-30T13:30:00+00:00","content":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035. The experts disagreed on almost everything, but what they did agree on was alarming: no one is prepared to govern the AI capabilities that could be coming.\nExperts Agree That Governance Is Failing\nMore than 80 percent of respondents expect that AI governance will be fragmented. Only 5 percent anticipate that domestic institutions, such as regulatory bodies and courts, will keep up with the pace of AI development.\nA U.S.-China bilateral agreement is the path experts see as the most likely option to produce a binding governance agreement—a dim prospect, given the state of U.S.-China relations, and one that would leave most of the world on the sidelines.\nMeanwhile, more than 70 percent of respondents say a serious AI accident is the most likely trigger for change. Taken together, those findings suggest that things will get worse before they start to get better.\nExperts Are Genuinely (and Revealingly) Split on Who Will Build Frontier AI\nRespondents came to no clear consensus on how concentrated frontier AI will be in 2035. About half (46 percent) expect the ability to develop frontier AI capabilities to remain in the hands of a few actors; 54 percent predict it will diffuse to dozens of states and nonstate actors. Few experts land between those options.\nThat polarization likely reflects two incompatible views on how AI will develop. One group expects scaling laws to hold, and that increases in model size, data, and computing power will reliably translate to improvements in AI performance, keeping frontier AI development costly and, therefore, concentrated. The other expects that new models, algorithms, chips, or other technological breakthroughs will make frontier AI models smaller, cheaper, and more accessible to more developers.\nThe economic stakes of frontier AI development are considerable. Most experts (68 percent) expect productivity gains from AI to concentrate among advanced economies or a small number of private actors. Experts are skeptical that new alliances or political strategy will change that calculus for the Global South: 64 percent say receiving meaningful benefits from AI would require a fundamental shift in how AI is built—one that moves away from models demanding enormous data, energy, and compute, and toward alternatives that are less resource intensive.\nPower Is Already Shifting From States to Labs\nAlmost 70 percent of respondents believe frontier AI labs will be the most powerful nonstate actors by 2035, and 75 percent expect nonstate actors to gain leverage over the state.\nThose predictions are already coming true: at the Group of Seven Summit in June 2026, world leaders were joined by the CEOs of OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, Mistral, and other companies to discuss AI governance, AI infrastructure, and international stability. Respondents would not have been surprised that the labs had a seat at the table, but they would have worried about what their presence means for governance. Along with labor market disruption and democratic backsliding, respondents identified regulatory capture as one of their top concerns, fearing AI labs will gain power over the governments that are meant to oversee them.\nWhere Things Stand\nAs the survey results highlight, experts broadly agree that the world is navigating profound uncertainty without agreed-upon rules or institutions that can ameliorate the social, political, economic, and strategic instability that will accompany rapid AI development and deployment. Experts are split over where AI is heading, but nearly unanimous that no one is steering. Frontier AI labs have the most power and expertise, but they, so far, remain unaccountable to governments or the publics they affect.\nThis work represents the views solely of the author(s). The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.","confidence":0.9,"diagnostics_url":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","quality_bucket":"high","failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"quality_reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412,"usable_text_length":4343,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412}},"tags":[]},"fallback_formats":["markdown","json","html"],"actions":{"read":"/item/49798","export_markdown":"/api/items/49798/export?format=markdown","export_json":"/api/items/49798/export?format=json","diagnose":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing"},"formats":{"full":{"id":49798,"title":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. - Council on Foreign Relations","url":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","source":"Council on Foreign Relations","author":null,"published_at":"2026-07-30T13:30:00+00:00","locale":"en","topic":"ai","tags":[],"excerpt":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035.","full_text":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035. The experts disagreed on almost everything, but what they did agree on was alarming: no one is prepared to govern the AI capabilities that could be coming.\nExperts Agree That Governance Is Failing\nMore than 80 percent of respondents expect that AI governance will be fragmented. Only 5 percent anticipate that domestic institutions, such as regulatory bodies and courts, will keep up with the pace of AI development.\nA U.S.-China bilateral agreement is the path experts see as the most likely option to produce a binding governance agreement—a dim prospect, given the state of U.S.-China relations, and one that would leave most of the world on the sidelines.\nMeanwhile, more than 70 percent of respondents say a serious AI accident is the most likely trigger for change. Taken together, those findings suggest that things will get worse before they start to get better.\nExperts Are Genuinely (and Revealingly) Split on Who Will Build Frontier AI\nRespondents came to no clear consensus on how concentrated frontier AI will be in 2035. About half (46 percent) expect the ability to develop frontier AI capabilities to remain in the hands of a few actors; 54 percent predict it will diffuse to dozens of states and nonstate actors. Few experts land between those options.\nThat polarization likely reflects two incompatible views on how AI will develop. One group expects scaling laws to hold, and that increases in model size, data, and computing power will reliably translate to improvements in AI performance, keeping frontier AI development costly and, therefore, concentrated. The other expects that new models, algorithms, chips, or other technological breakthroughs will make frontier AI models smaller, cheaper, and more accessible to more developers.\nThe economic stakes of frontier AI development are considerable. Most experts (68 percent) expect productivity gains from AI to concentrate among advanced economies or a small number of private actors. Experts are skeptical that new alliances or political strategy will change that calculus for the Global South: 64 percent say receiving meaningful benefits from AI would require a fundamental shift in how AI is built—one that moves away from models demanding enormous data, energy, and compute, and toward alternatives that are less resource intensive.\nPower Is Already Shifting From States to Labs\nAlmost 70 percent of respondents believe frontier AI labs will be the most powerful nonstate actors by 2035, and 75 percent expect nonstate actors to gain leverage over the state.\nThose predictions are already coming true: at the Group of Seven Summit in June 2026, world leaders were joined by the CEOs of OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, Mistral, and other companies to discuss AI governance, AI infrastructure, and international stability. Respondents would not have been surprised that the labs had a seat at the table, but they would have worried about what their presence means for governance. Along with labor market disruption and democratic backsliding, respondents identified regulatory capture as one of their top concerns, fearing AI labs will gain power over the governments that are meant to oversee them.\nWhere Things Stand\nAs the survey results highlight, experts broadly agree that the world is navigating profound uncertainty without agreed-upon rules or institutions that can ameliorate the social, political, economic, and strategic instability that will accompany rapid AI development and deployment. Experts are split over where AI is heading, but nearly unanimous that no one is steering. Frontier AI labs have the most power and expertise, but they, so far, remain unaccountable to governments or the publics they affect.\nThis work represents the views solely of the author(s). The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.","reading_time_min":3,"extraction":{"state":"ok","confidence":0.9,"error":null,"explanation":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","diagnostics_url":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412,"usable_text_length":4343,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412}}},"quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412,"usable_text_length":4343,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412}},"actions":{"read":"/item/49798","export_markdown":"/api/items/49798/export?format=markdown","export_json":"/api/items/49798/export?format=json","diagnose":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing"}},"digest":{"id":49798,"title":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. - Council on Foreign Relations","url":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","source":"Council on Foreign Relations","topic":"ai","published_at":"2026-07-30T13:30:00+00:00","excerpt":"By experts and staff - Published The decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they…","quality_bucket":"high","quality_reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","reading_time_min":3,"cluster_id":null},"card":{"display_title":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. - Council on Foreign Relations","subtitle":"Council on Foreign Relations · 2026-07-30","summary":"By experts and staff - Published The decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed…","badges":["quality:high"],"links":{"read":"/item/49798","original":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","diagnose":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing"},"quality_warning":null},"export":{"title":"CFR Surveyed 350 Experts About AI’s Future. Most Think Governance Is Failing. - Council on Foreign Relations","url":"https://www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","summary":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035.","source":"Council on Foreign Relations","date":"2026-07-30T13:30:00+00:00","content":"By experts and staff\n- Published\nThe decisions being made about artificial intelligence (AI) right now—who builds it, who governs it, and who benefits from it—will shape geopolitics for decades to come. CFR surveyed three hundred fifty foreign policy experts about what they expect the distribution of frontier AI capabilities and the nature of governance structures that emerge around them to look like by 2035. The experts disagreed on almost everything, but what they did agree on was alarming: no one is prepared to govern the AI capabilities that could be coming.\nExperts Agree That Governance Is Failing\nMore than 80 percent of respondents expect that AI governance will be fragmented. Only 5 percent anticipate that domestic institutions, such as regulatory bodies and courts, will keep up with the pace of AI development.\nA U.S.-China bilateral agreement is the path experts see as the most likely option to produce a binding governance agreement—a dim prospect, given the state of U.S.-China relations, and one that would leave most of the world on the sidelines.\nMeanwhile, more than 70 percent of respondents say a serious AI accident is the most likely trigger for change. Taken together, those findings suggest that things will get worse before they start to get better.\nExperts Are Genuinely (and Revealingly) Split on Who Will Build Frontier AI\nRespondents came to no clear consensus on how concentrated frontier AI will be in 2035. About half (46 percent) expect the ability to develop frontier AI capabilities to remain in the hands of a few actors; 54 percent predict it will diffuse to dozens of states and nonstate actors. Few experts land between those options.\nThat polarization likely reflects two incompatible views on how AI will develop. One group expects scaling laws to hold, and that increases in model size, data, and computing power will reliably translate to improvements in AI performance, keeping frontier AI development costly and, therefore, concentrated. The other expects that new models, algorithms, chips, or other technological breakthroughs will make frontier AI models smaller, cheaper, and more accessible to more developers.\nThe economic stakes of frontier AI development are considerable. Most experts (68 percent) expect productivity gains from AI to concentrate among advanced economies or a small number of private actors. Experts are skeptical that new alliances or political strategy will change that calculus for the Global South: 64 percent say receiving meaningful benefits from AI would require a fundamental shift in how AI is built—one that moves away from models demanding enormous data, energy, and compute, and toward alternatives that are less resource intensive.\nPower Is Already Shifting From States to Labs\nAlmost 70 percent of respondents believe frontier AI labs will be the most powerful nonstate actors by 2035, and 75 percent expect nonstate actors to gain leverage over the state.\nThose predictions are already coming true: at the Group of Seven Summit in June 2026, world leaders were joined by the CEOs of OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, Mistral, and other companies to discuss AI governance, AI infrastructure, and international stability. Respondents would not have been surprised that the labs had a seat at the table, but they would have worried about what their presence means for governance. Along with labor market disruption and democratic backsliding, respondents identified regulatory capture as one of their top concerns, fearing AI labs will gain power over the governments that are meant to oversee them.\nWhere Things Stand\nAs the survey results highlight, experts broadly agree that the world is navigating profound uncertainty without agreed-upon rules or institutions that can ameliorate the social, political, economic, and strategic instability that will accompany rapid AI development and deployment. Experts are split over where AI is heading, but nearly unanimous that no one is steering. Frontier AI labs have the most power and expertise, but they, so far, remain unaccountable to governments or the publics they affect.\nThis work represents the views solely of the author(s). The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.","confidence":0.9,"diagnostics_url":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.cfr.org/articles/cfr-surveyed-350-experts-about-ais-future-most-think-governance-is-failing","quality_bucket":"high","failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"quality_reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 4343 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412,"usable_text_length":4343,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":4343,"summary_length":412}},"tags":[],"format_contract_version":"news_item_formats.v1"}}}