AI’s Shift from Tool to Agent: Bangladesh’s Narrow Window

Much discussion is in the air about the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential dangers. The debate gained fresh attention on 12 September 2026, when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called on the AI industry to slow the pace of capability development. In an essay titled “We Must Pace the Frontier,” he warned that commercial competition could become a “race to the bottom,” increasing risks such as loss of control over AI systems, cyberattacks, and serious economic disruption.

What made the moment notable was the response from rival AI leaders. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman endorsed the idea of “pacing the frontier,” while Elon Musk also expressed support. Altman separately confirmed that OpenAI would not pursue an initial public offering (IPO) in 2026, noting that current safety concerns make it the wrong time to do so.

The concern is not new. In September 2025, during the 80th United Nations General Assembly, more than 200 prominent figures-- including Nobel laureates, political leaders, and AI researchers-- backed the Global Call for AI Red Lines. The initiative urged governments to agree by the end of 2026 on internationally enforceable limits for the most dangerous AI uses and behaviours. That deadline is now only months away, yet no such global agreement is in place.

Bangladesh, meanwhile, is adopting AI across agriculture, healthcare, government services, banking and finance, manufacturing and RMG, software development, education, telecommunications, transport and disaster management. The country has also developed a draft National AI Policy 2026–2030, with the policy committee currently reviewing public feedback before finalisation.

The message for Bangladesh is not that AI should be feared. It is that the technology is advancing faster than the systems needed to govern it. That matters because AI itself is changing. Until recently, most people experienced AI as a tool: ask a question, receive an answer, or give it a task and review the result. Across industries, AI could analyse medical images, detect banking fraud, forecast demand, identify factory defects, optimise supply chains, assist software development and personalise learning. But humans generally remained in the loop-- reviewing the output, making decisions and taking the next action.

That is changing with AI agents. Instead of simply responding to instructions, an agent can be given a goal and allowed to plan and carry out a series of tasks using software and digital tools, with much less human involvement at each step. The difference is significant: AI tools help people perform tasks; AI agents can increasingly perform much of the task themselves. This also raises the economic stakes. AI tools can make workers more productive, while increasingly capable agents may automate substantial parts of their jobs--particularly in software development and business-process outsourcing.

It is tempting to think that frontier-AI debates in Silicon Valley have little to do with Bangladesh. But the country does not need to build advanced AI models to experience their effects.

First, misuse is quite possible. AI-assisted fraud, impersonation and cyberattacks can exploit widely available tools. A banking system that uses AI for legitimate services must therefore also prepare for increasingly sophisticated AI-enabled attacks. Second, economic disruption crosses borders. Bangladesh’s RMG industry is deeply connected to international buyers and competitors. If automation changes production, purchasing or supply-chain decisions elsewhere, Bangladeshi manufacturers can feel the effects without developing the technology themselves. The same applies to software and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), where routine digital tasks are increasingly exposed to automation.

Third, AI will increasingly enter high-stakes public systems. Bangladesh is already exploring AI applications in areas such as disaster management and government services. In such settings, an AI system does not have to be malicious to cause harm. A wrong prediction, biased decision or unnoticed error can be serious when there is no effective human oversight or mechanism for correcting it.

This is why AI governance cannot be treated as an issue for the distant future. Bangladesh’s draft National AI Policy provides a framework, but policy on paper is only the beginning. Implementation, independent oversight, transparency and clear human responsibility will matter just as much. Bangladesh is adopting AI while the rules for governing the technology are still being developed. This gives the country a chance to put safeguards in place before AI becomes deeply embedded in every institution. Bangladesh does not need to solve the global problem of AI alignment or wait for an international treaty. It needs to make sure that AI adoption does not move faster than its ability to supervise and control it.

Before introducing AI into an important system, some basic questions must be answered: What decisions can the system make? What must remain under human control? Who is responsible when it makes a mistake? Can citizens challenge an AI-assisted decision? How will personal data be protected? And how will the system be independently tested and monitored? Answering these questions is more important as AI moves from responding to people to taking actions on their behalf. The lesson from the AI industry is not that progress should stop. It is that safety and oversight must keep pace with capability. Bangladesh should therefore adopt AI--but do so carefully. 

________________________________

The writer is Distinguished Professor, Eastern University, and former Vice Chancellor, East West University, Bangladesh