Idea 3: Last Mover’s Advantage: Rethinking the Race for AI Supremacy
A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend the African Leadership University’s BOLD Summit in Mauritius, which brought together educational leaders from across the continent to discuss the future of education. As with many summits today, Artificial Intelligence (AI) was one of the main topics under discussion. During one of the sessions, Dr. Stephene Naicken, Academic Director of African Leadership University, asked Dr. Fred Swaniker, Founder and CEO of SAND Technologies and ALX, whether Africa could realistically headline the development and application of AI, or whether she risked being left behind, further widening the technological gap between herself and the rest of the world. The question and the optimistic response struck a chord, not only because they speak to Africa’s ambition but also because they raise a deeper philosophical question: must progress always mean moving first?
Still on the topic of AI and the future of education, the University’s CEO, Veda Sunnassee, shared a Wall Street Journal video on how China is using AI in the classroom. Though the video is six years old, it remains timely as the global race for AI supremacy intensifies. Governments and corporations alike are investing billions to lead in AI, while others are joining the race simply for fear of missing out or being left behind. Proponents of an AI-first world argue that technology will help solve many of the challenges we face as a species. From agricultural productivity to healthcare access and educational equity, we will be able to achieve efficiency, transparency, certitude, and perfection, and, by extension, eliminate their evil twins of friction, opacity, ambiguity, and imperfection. But at what cost, and at whose mercy?
There is no question that technology can accelerate progress. From improving maternal health outcomes to mitigating climate change, its potential is undeniable. Yet, the decision to adopt and invest in AI (and other forms of technology) must be made in the context of our cultural values, governance capacity, and social priorities. I believe that Africa, in particular, must resist the temptation to replicate the pace of Silicon Valley’s innovation cycle and instead ask: could there be wisdom in moving last?
As an entrepreneurship development practitioner and educator, I often encouraged the entrepreneurs and students I worked with to aim for the first-mover advantage, the notion that early entrants enjoy superior market share, brand recognition, and technological leadership. However, as an economic development practitioner now and as my pool of knowledge expands, I am coming to understand that being first does not always guarantee success. Apple was not the first in portable music or smartphones; Google was not the first search engine. Their strength lay in refining technology after others had stumbled, waiting until the market, infrastructure, and ethics were ready. The last-mover advantage, in this sense, is not about delay or indecision but about learning before leaping, allowing early movers to absorb the cost of experimentation, regulatory failure, and public backlash. In a field as consequential as AI, where mistakes can entrench bias or displace livelihoods, the last mover may hold both the moral and strategic advantage.
For nations still navigating foundational questions of governance and identity, and communities that place a high premium on human connectivity and culture, there is a need to assess the adoption of technology not in isolation but in the broader context of its application and secondary impacts. In our enthusiasm for modernization, we risk importing not only the tools of AI but also the underlying ideologies that shape them, those that prioritize efficiency over empathy, automation over autonomy, and optimization over moral reasoning. Borrowing the words of Evgeny Morozov, if we fail to “escape the silicon mentality that fuels much of the current quest for technological perfection,” we could find ourselves with humans who have “lost their basic capacity for moral reasoning,” and with cultural institutions that care only for financial bottom lines.
Africa’s challenge, then, is not whether to embrace AI, but how and when. There is much work to be done, including reducing maternal mortality, improving agricultural yields, expanding educational access, and addressing climate change, just like other parts of the world. AI can and should be part of these efforts, but our measure of readiness should not be solely based on the speed of adoption and the size of our investments. It should be the quality of alignment: does this technology serve our people, reflect our values, and contribute to long-term development rather than short-term dominance?
Perhaps Africa’s advantage lies not in rushing to be first but in choosing to be deliberate. A continent that moves last, but wisely, can learn from the ethical missteps, governance failures, and cultural disruptions of those who moved first. It can craft policies that prioritize equity and inclusion, foster education systems that humanize rather than mechanize learning, and develop AI ecosystems that reflect its diverse realities. Because just as not everything that can be counted counts, not everything that can be automated should be.
In a world where AI has become a race, we must remember that some races are not worth winning. The societies that will ultimately lead are those that move deliberately, govern ethically, and build technologies that deepen human freedom and connectivity rather than diminish it. Or as Delali Vogbe put it during the BOLD Summit, just because we can, does not mean we should.
