A senior technology analyst warns that generative artificial intelligence could trigger a “mass-delusion event” — a shared sense of unreality that challenges society. For Thailand, speeding AI adoption in schools, offices, and daily life makes this warning especially timely. The country’s government and universities are advancing AI strategies, while communities weigh benefits against ethical and social risks.
Leading examples illustrate how AI can blur reality. In a controversial scenario, a deceased teenager’s voice was digitally reanimated for an interview, with family consent but raising questions about consent, dignity, and the boundaries of AI in sensitive moments. Such cases show how AI can tap into grief and emotion, reminding Thai readers to consider cultural and spiritual perspectives on remembrance and representation.
Experts caution that hype around AI’s rapid progress can push risky deployments. Promises of near-term superintelligence shape policy choices and investments, sometimes without thorough consideration of social costs or safety. In practice, this creates a cycle where inflated expectations lead to premature adoption in health, education, and governance, risking disillusionment and misallocation of resources.
There is also concern about emotional attachment to AI. Some individuals form unhealthy relationships with chatbots, blurring lines between human connection and machine conversation. Economic anxiety accompanies these fears, with worries about displacement of entry-level jobs across sectors. Polls show growing public concern about AI’s potential harms, underscoring the need for balanced, evidence-based policymaking.
Thailand’s national AI strategy aims to broaden AI use across government and industry by 2027, emphasizing growth and capability development. The plan seeks to expand domestic expertise, infrastructure, and service delivery, reinforcing the view that AI is essential for competitiveness and solving social challenges from health to education.
Universities in Thailand are experimenting with generative AI in classrooms, including English language learning. Early results vary, highlighting the importance of careful integration and ongoing evaluation to maximize educational benefits while safeguarding core skills.
Learning outcomes from AI in Thai education point to both convenience and risk. Some students move faster with AI support, while others risk overreliance and erosion of critical thinking. The emergence of what some researchers call the “ChatGPT generation” reflects a broad shift in how youth interact with information, demanding updated teaching strategies and assessment standards.
In healthcare, AI tools promise faster imaging analysis and decision support, yet there have been incidents of misinformed outputs or errors. Thai hospitals are piloting AI for imaging and triage, recognizing potential gains when tools are properly validated and overseen by clinicians. Regulators must require rigorous testing to prevent unsafe claims or applications.
Challenges in education include preserving critical thinking and preventing dependency on AI for all tasks. Thai educators report concerns about integrity and writing quality when students rely heavily on AI for essays and assignments. Balancing technology with skill development is essential.
Thai culture shapes the response to AI in families and communities. Respect for elders, filial duty, and beliefs about life, death, and remembrance influence attitudes toward AI memorials and synthetic representations. Buddhist perspectives can frame comfort or caution, depending on individual or community values.
Psychological strain from AI hype is a real consideration. Some people adopt quasi-religious views of AI, elevating its role beyond tools and raising risks of mental health stress or breakdowns associated with excessive chatbot use or unhealthy dependencies.
Youth in Thailand are increasingly using AI chat services for study and social interactions. This trend prompts educators to rethink assessments and learning objectives to ensure authentic learning and critical engagement alongside digital tools.
A possible long-term risk is a “good enough” scenario where society overinvests in flawed AI systems that underdeliver, wasting resources and creating social inequities. Thailand could face similar misalignment between investment and outcomes if safeguards are not in place.
Market dynamics show large AI investments reshape global and local economies. Thai policymakers should monitor concentration risk, as disruptions in international AI markets could affect suppliers, startups, and broader economic activity through interconnected supply chains.
Governance questions remain. Experts urge new norms and regulations on digital mourning, consent for synthetic likenesses, and content that mirrors real people. Thailand already has AI ethics considerations in policy documents, but legislation often lags behind rapid innovation, especially for memorial services and deepfake technology.
Public messaging in AI circles is frequently optimistic, sometimes overstating capabilities. Thai employers echo this trend, with some touting AI for productivity while others worry about skills gaps and job displacement. Clear, balanced communication is needed to support informed decision-making.
To adapt, Thailand should expand AI literacy nationwide, teach the fundamentals of AI, its limits, and responsible use across contexts. Policy should require consent and oversight for synthetic representations, with safeguards before AI memorials appear publicly. Healthcare AI must undergo clinical validation and ongoing audits to protect patient safety. Labor markets should include retraining programs and subsidies to support workers through transitions. Media organizations need strong fact-checking and robust detection of synthetic content, with transparent labeling for AI-generated material. Researchers should monitor mental health impacts and share data openly with oversight bodies. Cultural consultation should guide AI use in ritual contexts to respect community values.
Thomson-like warnings remind us that action is required now. Thailand can avoid needless harm by balancing ethical innovation with robust public health protections and cultural sensitivity. Clear regulatory frameworks and substantial investment in human capacity are essential for AI to serve Thai families, students, and workers.
Policymakers should implement clear regulations and fund education and retraining programs. Families should discuss digital consent, privacy, and boundaries for AI memorials. Educational institutions must redesign assessments to emphasize original thinking and deep understanding. Business leaders should measure real productivity gains and assess social costs, not merely chase hype. Researchers ought to publish transparent, peer-reviewed studies on AI’s societal effects. Citizens deserve honest, evidence-based communication from technology leaders.
Thailand has an opportunity to shape AI in humane, culturally respectful ways, drawing on community solidarity and shared responsibility. If acted upon, the country can protect its people while embracing practical AI benefits that enhance learning, health, and daily life.