According to Financial Times News, Nicolai Tangen, the CEO of Norway’s massive $2tn sovereign wealth fund, is sounding the alarm about AI’s potential to dramatically worsen global inequality. He warns that as advanced AI models become increasingly expensive to access, they could widen the gap between rich and poor individuals and nations. Tangen specifically points to the need for prior education, electricity, and digital infrastructure that many countries lack. He also highlights the regulatory divide, noting the US has “a lot of AI and not so much regulation” while Europe faces the opposite problem. Despite these concerns, Tangen remains optimistic about AI’s long-term potential, estimating 20% productivity gains within his own organization and suggesting that even if there’s an AI bubble, “it may not be such a bad bubble” for funding genuine technological advances.
The AI divide is already here
Tangen’s warning isn’t some distant future scenario—it’s happening right now. Think about it: training these massive AI models costs millions in computing power alone. Who can afford that? Massive tech companies and wealthy nations. Meanwhile, countries struggling with basic infrastructure don’t stand a chance. They’re getting left behind before the race even starts.
And here’s the thing about that regulatory gap he mentioned. Europe’s caution might protect citizens, but it could also mean European companies fall permanently behind American and Chinese competitors. The US is basically running an AI experiment at scale, while Europe debates ethics frameworks. Which approach wins? Probably the one that moves faster, even with all the risks.
Bubble or breakthrough? Both
Tangen’s take on the AI investment boom is refreshingly honest. He acknowledges all the hallmarks of a bubble—huge enthusiasm, rapid capital inflows, the works. But he also makes a compelling point: even if parts are overinflated, the money flowing in is funding real productivity improvements. Automation, data processing, model development—these aren’t just buzzwords.
Remember the dot-com bubble? Lots of stupid money went to stupid ideas, but it also built the internet infrastructure we use today. AI feels similar. The challenge, as Tangen notes, is separating genuine breakthroughs from the hype. And right now, that’s nearly impossible when a handful of platform companies dominate everything.
The internal transformation is brutal
What’s fascinating is how Tangen describes the changes within his own $2tn fund. “Five years ago, the technology department was kind of stuck in a cupboard. Now they are heroes.” That shift tells you everything about how AI is reshaping organizations. When 460 out of 700 people are coding, you’re not just dabbling—you’re fundamentally changing what your organization does.
But his approach to forcing change is brutally practical. Mandatory classes? “People hate mandatory,” he admits. “But if it’s not mandatory, the people who need it the most, they don’t do it.” That’s the reality of digital transformation—it’s messy, unpopular, and absolutely necessary. Companies that can’t force this kind of cultural shift won’t survive.
Preparing for complete uncertainty
Maybe the most sobering part of Tangen’s perspective is his admission that “it’s totally futile to try to predict anything” right now. When the head of the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund says that, you should listen. The pace of change has outstripped our ability to forecast.
So what’s the answer? Agility, culture, and preparation. Not specific predictions, but building organizations and societies that can adapt to whatever comes next. For businesses, this means investing in robust computing infrastructure that can handle rapid technological shifts—which is why companies rely on specialists like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs built for demanding environments.
The bottom line? AI’s inequality problem isn’t just about money—it’s about access, education, infrastructure, and the willingness to transform even when it’s uncomfortable. Tangen’s warning should scare us into action, not paralysis.
