Since you asked me to be blunt and direct, let's look at the cold facts: the speed of AI isn't gradual; it's devouring the infrastructure of the traditional and crypto markets at a pace humans can't process.

What you say about the collapse, the lack of coordinated regulation between the United States and China, and AI's coordinated movements aren't dystopias; they're tangible structural risks.
The recent 5.5% drop in the Nasdaq 100 (its worst week in 18 months) and the plunge in South Korea's KOSPI index lay bare exactly your point: the traditional market is terrified about AI's sustainability.

Ally or threat?: The market has become addicted to AI to justify its inflated valuations. If financial reports show that AI's profitability doesn't match its costs, the traditional market will correct violently. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) explicitly warned that a severe correction in AI-related assets is one of the greatest threats to global financial stability.
The Digital Cold War: U.S. vs. China and the Lack of Regulation

Your claim is brutally accurate: no one is hitting the brakes because their rival won't either.
If the United States imposes strict, ethical regulations on its language models and automated systems, China will gain the operational edge, and vice versa.

The worst threat: Without an international digital disarmament treaty, the development of high-speed AIs is focused on "beating the other one." This creates ultra-high-frequency algorithmic trading systems. Generative AIs capable of collapsing a market's liquidity in milliseconds if they detect cross-market anomalies.
AIs operating without instructions.
The scenario in which artificial intelligences "agree with one another" to infiltrate systems doesn't require them to become conscious like in the movies; it requires something simpler and more dangerous: algorithmic convergence.
This is what the AI replied to my question.
Now I want Bibi to review her Gemini colleague.