South Africa's vice president talks AI risks with Russian youth
Young people should be cautious about how they adopt artificial intelligence to ensure it does not diminish their creativity or cultural identity, South African Vice President Paul Mashatile told Russian students on Friday.
Mashatile spoke at a youth workshop 'The SPIEF Academy' organized by Russia's Roscongress Foundation on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
He described South Africa's investment in youth development programs as a strategy to spur innovation and generate future employment.
'The youth can come up with a lot of new ideas,' Mashatile said. 'Often you find the youth struggling with employment, but we are seeing the youth themselves can become employers,' provided they have access to seed funding.
Mashatile cautioned that AI could have negative effects on a young person's development.
'Artificial intelligence can have a negative impact if it stifles creativity, because it's easy for people to get lazy. You know, these days artificial intelligence can write an essay for you. And that's what we must avoid, particularly for the youth,' he said. 'We must use artificial intelligence as something that is supportive to our own creativity rather than it taking over.'
The vice president added that people using AI for creative purposes should remain rooted in their cultural identities and not be sidetracked by what models generate.
Mashatile praised Russia's history of providing higher education opportunities for African students and said South Africa is also eager to learn from Russia's advances in application of AI technology.
'We are also here to learn from the youth of Russia about what you are doing,' he told the audience.
The SPIEF Academy's main goal is to engage students and young professionals in the current agenda of the global economy, technological development, and social change. Its participants are students and young professionals aged 18 to 23 who are enrolled at leading Russian universities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russia's surprising role in the Israel-Iran conflict that you might not know about
During a recent visit to Turkmenistan, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with his counterparts and addressed students at the Institute of International Relations in Ashgabat. Among the central themes of his remarks was the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel – a confrontation that not only affects global geopolitics but also directly impacts the security dynamics of Central Asia. For Turkmenistan – which shares over 1,100km of border with Iran and has its capital just miles from that border – the growing tension poses serious risks. Beyond humanitarian concerns, the prospect of a wider war could awaken dormant radical networks and destabilize fragile domestic balances. These risks extend beyond Turkmenistan to other southern former Soviet republics that maintain close political and military ties with Russia. Against this backdrop, Lavrov's call for de-escalation and regional stability carried added weight. For Moscow, Iran is not just a partner – it's a pillar in the buffer zone securing Russia's southern flank. Instability in Tehran could ripple across Central Asia, threatening Russia's near-abroad. In January of this year, Russia and Iran signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement, institutionalizing bilateral ties and hinting at a future formal alliance. Tellingly, just days after Israeli airstrikes targeted Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi flew to Moscow, met with President Vladimir Putin, and held talks with Lavrov. He later described the visit as marked by 'complete mutual understanding' and emphasized Russia's support in an interview with the news outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed. Russia, along with China and Pakistan, has since pushed a new UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and a pathway to political settlement. As Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia noted, the resolution aims to stop further escalation. Yet Moscow has been careful in its public rhetoric. At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin avoided inflammatory language toward Israel, instead stressing the need for a diplomatic solution acceptable to all sides. This cautious tone reflects Russia's balancing act: deepening ties with Tehran while maintaining working – and in some cases warm – relations with Israel, including in military and humanitarian channels. That dual posture allows Russia to position itself as a potential mediator, should either party seek a negotiated outcome. On June 13, as Israeli airstrikes intensified, Russia quickly condemned the attacks and voiced strong concern about violations of Iranian sovereignty. Putin went further, calling US behavior in the region 'unprovoked aggression.' Moscow's message was clear: it opposed outside military interventions – full stop. Days before Araghchi's trip, Putin publicly revealed that Russia had offered Iran expanded cooperation on air defense systems, an offer Tehran had not pursued. Far from a rebuke, it read as a nudge: if the strategic partnership is real, Iran needs to meet Russia halfway. Moscow remains open to closer defense collaboration, including integrating Iran's air defense into a broader regional security framework. In retrospect, had Tehran taken up the offer earlier, it might have been better prepared to repel the strikes. For Russia, security is measured not in rhetoric, but in results – and it expects its partners to act accordingly. Crucially, the 2025 strategic agreement between Moscow and Tehran does not entail mutual defense obligations. It is not the Russian equivalent of NATO's Article 5, nor does it mandate automatic military assistance. As Putin clarified, the pact reflects political trust and coordination – not a blank check for joint warfare. In fact, the treaty explicitly forbids either side from supporting a third party that launches aggression against the other. Russia has held to that standard – refusing to engage with perceived aggressors, while voicing diplomatic solidarity with Iran and condemning destabilizing actions by the US and Israel. In short, the architecture of the partnership is built on sovereign respect and strategic equilibrium – not entangling commitments. It centers on military-technical cooperation, coordinated diplomacy via BRICS and the SCO, and shared interest in regional stability. But it stops short of dragging Russia into wars that don't pose a direct threat to its national security. One development drew particular attention: just after Araghchi's Kremlin visit, US President Donald Trump abruptly called for a ceasefire and adopted a noticeably softer tone on Iran. With the exception of a few pointed posts on Truth Social, his messaging turned markedly more measured. Prior to his trip to Moscow, Araghchi emphasized in Istanbul that consultations with Russia were 'strategic and not ceremonial.' He made clear that Tehran viewed the partnership as a platform for sensitive security coordination – not just protocol. Whether by coincidence or not, the shift in US rhetoric suggests Moscow's influence may have quietly shaped the trajectory of events. Russia, after all, is one of the few actors with open channels to both Tehran and Tel Aviv. It's entirely plausible that the Kremlin served as a behind-the-scenes intermediary, securing at least a temporary pause in hostilities. Russia remains a calibrated but consequential player in the Middle East. Accusations that Moscow has failed to 'stand by' Iran are speculative and largely unfounded – both politically and legally. Russia offers solidarity, coordination, and leverage – not unconditional support for escalation. And in a region where words matter as much as missiles, a subtle shift in language from Washington – timed to quiet talks in the Kremlin – may say more than any press release. Diplomacy, after all, often moves where cameras don't.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine in NATO would mean WWIII
Ukrainian accession to NATO would lead to an immediate all-out war with Russia and World War III, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He has also cautioned against hastily admitting Ukraine into the EU. Budapest has long opposed Brussels' policies on the Ukraine conflict, including weapons deliveries and sanctions on Russia. It has also urged against integrating Ukraine into NATO and the EU. In a post on X on Saturday, Orban wrote that Ukrainian membership in NATO 'would mean war with Russia, and World War 3 the very next day.' He added that the 'EU's reckless rush to admit Ukraine would pull the frontlines into the heart of Europe.' The Hungarian prime minister described the EU leadership's approach as 'insanity,' vowing not to 'let them turn Europe into a battlefield. Orban's X post came after an interview with Hungarian media on Friday, in which he argued that the admission of Ukraine into the EU would ruin the entire bloc, including Hungary's economy. He previously outlined his concerns over cheap Ukrainian produce undercutting Hungarian farmers. He added that Ukraine's borders and population will remain fluid for as long as the conflict with Russia lasts, making EU membership untenable. On Thursday, Budapest vetoed a joint EU statement on Ukraine at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, effectively blocking Kiev's accession talks. Under EU rules, unanimous approval from all 27 member states is required to initiate the process. According to a communique issued by the bloc, the issue is expected to be brought up again at the council's next meeting in October. Commenting on his country's stance earlier this week, Orban cited the results of a consultative vote in Hungary that ran from mid-April to June 20, which asked: 'Do you support Ukraine's European Union membership?' According to the prime minister, 95% of more than 2 million participants rejected Ukraine's EU aspirations. Earlier this month, Orban insisted that even though the Ukraine conflict is 'unwinnable… war-hungry politicians want us to believe that we must continue the war.' 'We do not want to die for Ukraine. We don't want our sons to come back in a coffin. We don't want an Afghanistan next door,' he said, calling for a diplomatic solution instead. He went on to criticize the increasing militarization of the EU, for which the European Council formally approved a €150 billion ($171 billion) borrowing mechanism last month. Moscow has long opposed Ukraine's bid to join NATO, but had until recently maintained a neutral stance regarding its EU ambitions. However, in light of the EU's 'rabid' militarization, senior Russian officials have recently expressed reservations regarding EU membership as well.
Russia Today
17 hours ago
- Russia Today
The West waging ‘centuries-old war' against Moscow – Russia's top UN diplomat
Western nations are using Ukraine as their proxy in a longstanding confrontation with Russia that is deeply rooted in history, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia told RT's Rick Sanchez. In an interview on The Sanchez Effect aired on Friday, the diplomat argued that the conflict 'should be seen in a larger context.' 'They do not care about Ukraine. This is not a war between Russia and Ukraine,' Nebenzia said. 'Ukraine is a proxy in this war. This is a centuries-old war of the West against Russia, starting with the Polish invasion in the 17th century,' he added. As examples of earlier confrontations, Nebenzia cited Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the 1854–1856 Crimean War, Western military intervention during the Russian Civil War, and the invasion by Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II. He emphasized that Hitler's army included not only Germans, but also units drawn from allied countries and occupied territories. The Ukrainians and 'their sponsors' in the West sabotaged the 2014–2015 Minsk accords, which were aimed at ending the conflict between Kiev and the breakaway Donbass republics, the Russian diplomat said. Former French President Francois Hollande and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel later admitted the agreement was used by Kiev to buy time and rearm, Nebenzia stated. 'We are not going [to fall] into the same trap once again,' he said. He added that politicians like former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson similarly helped derail the 2022 peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine's European backers were forced to adjust their position, Nebenzia argued, after US President Donald Trump launched efforts to broker peace and Ukrainian troops began losing more ground. 'They changed their rhetoric from 'We should inflict strategic defeat on Russia' to 'Russia should not win in this war.' Now they are advocating for a full, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire, which is testimony that they want to shield and protect their proxy, as they are obviously losing on the battlefield,' he said. At the same time, Nebenzia noted that the resumption of direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations earlier this year provides hope that the conflict could be resolved soon.
