How is power changing?
Ken Sofer has spent much of his career thinking about what happens when international systems fail the people they are supposed to protect. Before founding the communications and strategy firm New Colossus Advisors and teaching American foreign policy at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, he spent more than eight years at the International Rescue Committee, working across humanitarian advocacy, policy and global crisis response.
That experience shapes how he views emerging technology. The internet developed during a period of optimism about economic integration, international cooperation and the strength of the postwar order. AI is developing under very different conditions. Alliances are becoming shallower and more transactional, governments are weaponizing economic and technological dependencies, and both states and non-state actors have more ways to purchase influence, weapons and technical capabilities.
In this wide-ranging conversation, Ken and Chelsea examine how inexpensive drones and AI-assisted targeting are narrowing the military gap between powerful states and smaller actors, why conflict economies have become global industries and how climate vulnerability adds pressure to societies already divided by poverty and political instability. They also discuss technological sovereignty, the growing power of multinational companies and why policymakers need independent technical expertise rather than relying primarily on the companies they are expected to oversee.
Ken argues that governance does not require choosing between innovation and regulation. It requires clear expectations, meaningful human oversight, transparency and enough consistency for governments, businesses and communities to understand the rules. Most importantly, technological systems must be built around the people expected to use them. Communities are not blank slates waiting for outside experts to replace what already exists.
Tune in for this thoughtful interview, listen or watch! We hope you enjoy it as much as we did.
“Information is a source of power, and explaining things is how you share and distribute that power.” — Ken Sofer
Video Source: Ken Sofer Explainer
Guest
Ken Sofer, Founder and Principal of New Colossus Advisors and Adjunct Professor of American Foreign Policy at the University of Missouri-Kansas City; former Director of Public Advocacy and Advisor for Policy and Planning in the Office of the President at the International Rescue Committee; he advises global NGO leaders, policymakers and presidential campaigns on humanitarian response, climate, emerging technologies and international affairs.
Carve-outs
Ken: You cannot entrap while you weaponize. The United States wants other countries to remain dependent on American financial and technological systems while also using access to semiconductors, frontier models and other chokepoints as leverage. Ken argues that those strategies eventually work against each other. Countries will resist dependency when participation can be withdrawn or weaponized against them.
Ken: Information as a source of power. Technical complexity can become a form of gatekeeping. Ken sees clear explanation as a way to distribute power, bring people with different expertise into policy conversations and prevent governments from becoming dependent on the institutions they are supposed to regulate.
Ken: Climate change as a lid on boiling water. Climate change does not automatically cause conflict. Instead, it adds pressure to societies already strained by political exclusion, poverty, displacement or competition over resources. A lid alone will not make a cold pot boil, but placed over a raging fire, it accelerates the pressure.
Ken: The Age of Impunity., David Miliband’s World Economic Forum speech. The belief that “the rules are for suckers” now reaches beyond war. It appears in politics, economic relationships and the exercise of corporate power. The result is a system in which powerful actors can violate norms with fewer consequences while vulnerable populations have less influence over the decisions affecting them.
Ken: Dignity, autonomy and investment in the future. Across his work in Iraq, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and El Salvador, Ken sees the same fundamental needs. People want dignity, some control over their lives and a reason to believe their children will have a future. When those foundations disappear, political systems and social rules lose legitimacy.
Chelsea and Ken: Fellow Trojans- Integrity, Excellence, Community, Well-being, Open Communication, Accountability. Chelsea and Ken are both University of Southern California alumni. A small reminder that wide-ranging conversations about AI, conflict and the future of the international order can still begin with “Fight On.”
Ken: Do not replace systems you have not tried to understand. Technology companies often arrive in vulnerable communities with a new tool and ask people to discard the local systems they already use. Ken argues that successful adoption begins by understanding those communities, respecting their knowledge and improving existing systems rather than assuming innovation must replace them.
Key points
AI in a fractured international order: AI is emerging during a period of geopolitical competition, transactional alliances and declining confidence in international institutions, unlike the more cooperative environment that shaped the early internet
The changing economics of conflict: Cheap drones, global weapons markets and profitable conflict economies make violence more accessible to states, militias, rebel groups and other non-state actors
Technological sovereignty: Governments increasingly depend on foreign cloud providers, frontier models, computing infrastructure and private companies, creating a two-tier system between countries that can control these technologies and those that remain dependent on outside decisions
Conflict, climate and poverty: Many of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises sit at the intersection of armed conflict, climate vulnerability and extreme poverty, leaving communities with little capacity to withstand additional shocks
Government capacity and meaningful oversight: Policymakers need independent technical expertise, transparent incident reporting, procurement standards and humans meaningfully involved in military decisions rather than providing nominal approval after an AI system has already produced a target
Consistency over regulatory extremes: Governments, companies and civil society can operate under different levels of regulation, but unpredictability discourages investment and weakens trust. Clear, stable expectations matter more than choosing between an entirely laissez-faire or highly restrictive model
Proliferation risk: The spread of AI-enabled targeting, autonomous systems and coordinated drone technologies to authoritarian governments and non-state armed groups is one of the most important risks receiving insufficient attention
Communities are not blank slates: Technology should strengthen local knowledge and existing systems. Effective adoption requires understanding the intended users, their incentives and the solutions they already rely upon
Links
RSS feed, listen on Apple, Spotify and anywhere else you get your podcasts!
Thanks for reading Potentia! Join 3.2k+ followers! We genuinely appreciate every like save and follow : ) Your support means the world!
