The AI “Wild West” Threat, and the Caribbean’s Next Move

The Dutch public-sector outlet iBestuur reports that Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens is warning of a “Wild West” outcome if generative AI spreads faster than the rules, values, and safeguards needed to keep it aligned with fundamental rights.

That warning lands at a moment when generative AI is moving from novelty to infrastructure, quietly entering schools, clinics, media workflows, call centers, and government offices. Once that happens, it stops being “a tool” and becomes an environment. The question is no longer whether we will use it, but under what conditions, with whose data, and with what accountability when it goes wrong.

What the AP is actually worried about

The AP’s message, as summarized across Dutch coverage, is not “stop AI.” It is closer to: innovation is fine, but it needs guardrails.

In the iBestuur report, the regulator points to a fast-growing ecosystem of apps and services, many offered by large US-based firms, and says organizations are deploying generative AI too quickly, often without thinking through consequences for people and society.  It highlights examples that mirror what Caribbean communities are already seeing online, non-consensual sexual deepfakes, chatbots positioned as mental-health support, and people treating chatbots as their primary information source.

The AP also frames a set of broader system-level risks:

• Sensitive data pooling at speed, because people are using AI for very personal issues, feeding models with intimate prompts and details.
• Concentration of AI power among a small number of providers, which can translate into society-wide dependency.
• Geopolitical vulnerability, where technological dependency becomes leverage.

Across other Dutch summaries, the AP describes multiple “bad futures,” including a laissez-faire Wild West, a paralysis scenario where unclear rules freeze innovation, and an overcautious “bunker” scenario that blocks useful adoption.

The regulatory backdrop, Europe is already moving, in phases

The AP’s warning is also a reminder that Europe’s regulatory clock is already ticking. The European Union’s AI Act entered into force on August 1, 2024, with staged application dates: prohibited practices and AI literacy obligations from February 2, 2025; governance rules and obligations for general-purpose AI models from August 2, 2025; and high-risk system rules applying from August 2026 onward, with certain product-embedded high-risk systems getting longer transition periods into 2027.

The European Commission has publicly rejected “pause the clock” calls and said the rollout continues on schedule, even as debates continue about guidance and compliance tools.

Why that matters in the Caribbean is simple: even when Caribbean governments are not bound by EU law, Caribbean businesses and public entities often interact with EU markets, EU tourists, EU platforms, and EU data flows. Rules set in Brussels can become practical constraints in Bridgetown, Kingston, Port of Spain, and Philipsburg.

The Caribbean angle: a “Wild West” hits small states harder

Small Island Developing States do not have the same margin for error. When things go wrong, the blowback is heavier because institutions are smaller, budgets are tighter, and trust can collapse fast.

A Wild West AI environment in the Caribbean would not look abstract. It would show up as:

• Deepfakes in elections: fake audio of candidates, fake videos of “scandals,” rapid rumor cycles in WhatsApp groups, and weak capacity to investigate in real time.
• Fraud at scale: AI-written phishing, voice-cloned “mom, I need money” scams, fake invoices, fake job offers, and synthetic customer-service calls, all harder to spot.
• Tourism brand damage: fake advisories, fake incidents, manipulated videos framed as current, and reputational harm that spreads faster than corrections.
• Public-sector shortcuts: procurement decisions shaped by vendor hype, chatbots drafted into frontline services without testing, and sensitive citizen data pasted into tools that were never designed for government-grade confidentiality.
• Education disruption: assignments that cannot be trusted, uneven access creating inequality, and schools forced to react without a shared policy baseline.

That is why the AP’s “values first” argument travels well. When adoption becomes societal, the costs of getting governance wrong multiply.

The region is not starting from zero

The Caribbean already has emerging frameworks it can build on.

UNESCO has published a Caribbean AI Policy Roadmap designed specifically for small island realities, anchored in the global Recommendation on the Ethics of AI and aimed at guiding national policies and regional collaboration.

ECLAC has also produced a baseline study on AI readiness in the Caribbean, emphasizing that policy processes and legislation have often been too slow and siloed to keep up with innovation, and it offers recommendations spanning strategy, capacity-building, skills, infrastructure, and resilience needs specific to Caribbean SIDS.

At the regional level, the Caribbean Telecommunications Union has circulated work toward more harmonized AI policy recommendations, mapping regional initiatives and gaps, and pointing to the need for a coherent framework that connects AI policy, education, capacity, and governance.

On the national level, Jamaica has published policy recommendations through a National AI Task Force, explicitly placing ethical AI, privacy, and security in the framing, while also highlighting risks such as bias, job displacement, and cybersecurity threats.

This is the healthier path the AP is pushing for, not knee-jerk bans, but a values-led system that still allows real adoption.

Data protection is the region’s fastest, most practical “guardrail” right now

Even without a full AI law, many of the most urgent harms are data harms: unauthorized collection, careless sharing, weak security, unclear retention, and opaque decision-making.

Across the Caribbean, data protection legislation is expanding, with a growing list of acts and bills tracked by regional institutions.  For places like St. Maarten, personal data protection rules are also part of the picture, and businesses can additionally feel the pull of the EU’s GDPR through its extra-territorial reach when offering goods or services to people in the EU or monitoring behavior there.

For Caribbean governments, tightening data governance is the fastest way to reduce AI risk immediately, because it controls the fuel AI runs on.

What “regulation” can realistically mean for Caribbean states

A strong Caribbean response does not need to copy-paste Europe. It can be smaller, sharper, and more enforceable. Here is what “guardrails” can look like in practice, starting now:

1. A public-sector AI policy that is short, clear, and mandatory
   Define what tools can be used, for what tasks, and what data can never be entered into consumer chatbots.
2. Procurement rules that treat AI like critical infrastructure
   Require disclosure on data handling, model updates, security standards, auditability, incident reporting, and where data is processed.
3. Impact checks for high-risk uses
   If AI touches benefits, policing, immigration, education placement, hiring, or health decisions, require human oversight, testing for bias, and a plain-language notice to citizens.
4. AI literacy as a civil-service competency
   The EU is already treating AI literacy as an obligation.  For the Caribbean, it can start with simple training: what to never paste into a chatbot, how hallucinations happen, how to verify outputs, how to spot synthetic media.
5. A regional playbook for elections and disasters
   Shared protocols for deepfake triage during campaigns, plus trusted channels for corrections during hurricanes and emergencies.
6. Regional coordination, because vendors are global
   A single island negotiating alone has limited leverage. A regional approach, aligned with UNESCO guidance and CTU coordination, can set consistent expectations for vendors and platforms.

Why this matters for the Caribbean’s next two years

The AP’s warning is essentially a timing argument: once AI is everywhere, fixing harms becomes harder or impossible.  That logic is even more acute in small states where enforcement capacity is limited and public trust is delicate.

The Caribbean does not need to choose between innovation and protection. It does need to choose whether AI arrives as an unmanaged import, or as a governed tool shaped to regional realities, language, culture, and risk.

‍