At the Business Summit 2026, a startling revelation emerged: Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon expressed astonishment that global markets have remained surprisingly stable following the Iran conflict. But here's where it gets controversial—Solomon also warned that the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) will inevitably make people uncomfortable, raising questions about how society will adapt. And this is the part most people miss: as AI advances, governments and businesses must work together to establish safeguards, or risk widespread unease.
In a candid conversation at the Australian Financial Review Business Summit, Solomon highlighted the inherent human resistance to change, especially when it comes at the breakneck speed of AI innovation. “The pace of this change is going to unsettle people,” he explained. “It’s our collective responsibility to navigate this uncharted territory, learning as we go, because we’re all facing something entirely new.”
He praised Australia’s proactive approach to regulating social media for users under 16, calling it a “very smart move” and a potential model for broader tech governance. But this raises a provocative question: Are such regulations enough, or do we need more aggressive measures to control the societal impact of rapidly advancing technologies?
Controversy alert: While Solomon’s remarks on AI were cautionary, he also spotlighted a growth opportunity for Goldman Sachs in Australia—liability structures and alternative investments. He noted that Australian institutions are relatively underweight in alternatives compared to global standards, presenting an intriguing opportunity for expansion. But is this focus on profit-driven growth at odds with the need for ethical AI development? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
As the summit continued, Solomon’s dual emphasis on innovation and regulation left attendees with a pressing question: Can we harness the potential of AI while mitigating its risks? The answer may determine the future of not just markets, but society itself. What’s your take? Agree or disagree—let’s spark a conversation.
