I know an AI expert. He has said the same type of thing you said. These AI company CEOs are NOT the ones to write any guidelines. There needs to be AI experts at the table but not any attached to these companies! I too, think these AI CEOs are trying to create panic to make more money. I don’t think they give a rip about any normal average citizens.
Do there need to be guardrails? Absolutely! I hope the Trump Administration and Congress uses COMMOM SENSE approaches to this issue and has AI experts NOT attached to the Trump administration or Trumps family or these AI company CEOs to set guardrails and then Congress needs to independently verify the process and help shape policy to get true guardrails and common sense policy developed and implemented with stiff penalties if policy isn’t followed.
AI can be used for all kinds of good things, IF it is used appropriately. Just like anything else in life. I’m not sure the Trump administration has the ethics and honesty to get this done. CONGRESS? Where are you?????
i think trump already said that he didn't want to reign in the AI companies. I could be wrong. I think he's all for making more money as he has no consideration for anyone.
Why should he be interested? He won´t be around to live through any negative repercussions that may come of this. And he really doesn´t give a shit about his spawn, or their spawn.
Great point! We really need people outside of these AI CEOs and the executive branch of our government, Trump, and his family. Trump and his cronies have proven themselves to not be trustworthy on an almost daily basis. I’m not even sure about Congress at this point either. It’s too bad that Trump deported a lot of foreign students. We will have to count on the young brainiacs soon to help us get out of a jam in the not too distant future.
There are AI experts out there NOT tied to these huge AI CEOs. I just don’t trust these guys anymore. They have proven time and time again to be out just for themselves and no one else. Once trust is broken, it’s hard to get back………
Kari, you know where they are. And where they’ve been. And now that it’s time to get re-elected, suddenly Repubs are deciding that being a Trumphumper isn’t such a good idea. Shocker.
We must win in November! And I think with every passing day, we get closer to getting both chambers. 🙌🏼 🙏🏼 💪🏼
AI is an extraordinary human achievement—and potentially one of the most consequential technologies of our lifetime. It can transform medicine, science, education, the arts, communication and countless other areas of human life. But precisely because its possibilities are so enormous, we should be asking a fundamental question:
Who will control it, who will profit from it, and who will be protected from its dangers?
Too often, technological progress in America seems to arrive with the same underlying assumption: if it can be built, it should be built—and if it can make enormous amounts of money, even better. We have watched billionaires become multi-billionaires while ordinary people struggle to keep up with housing, healthcare, education and the basic cost of living. Now AI offers the possibility of creating yet another extraordinary concentration of wealth and power.
At some point, we have to ask: How much is enough?
My concern is not AI itself. I welcome innovation. I welcome human ingenuity. What concerns me is innovation without adequate accountability—technology developing faster than our laws, our ethical standards and our democratic institutions can respond.
AI can be used to improve lives. It can also be used to manipulate information, eliminate jobs, invade privacy, intensify inequality, concentrate economic power and fundamentally alter how citizens encounter reality. Those possibilities should not be left solely to the corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals who stand to benefit most from the technology.
This is a larger problem than AI.
We are living through an era in which money and concentrated power increasingly influence decisions that should belong to the public. And regardless of who occupies the White House at any particular moment, the underlying problem will remain if enormous economic and technological power continues to reside in the hands of a relatively small number of people and corporations.
Political leaders come and go. Concentrated power can endure.
That is why I believe the conversation about AI must also be a conversation about democracy.
We need thoughtful legislation and meaningful oversight—not to stop innovation, but to make certain that innovation serves human beings rather than simply enriching those who already possess extraordinary wealth and influence. We need transparency, accountability, privacy protections, competition, safeguards for workers and clear rules governing the uses of AI that can cause genuine harm.
The answer is not to fear technology. The answer is to govern it wisely.
America has always been capable of extraordinary invention. But our greatest accomplishment should not be creating a world in which a handful of people possess unimaginable wealth and the technological power to shape everyone else's future.
The measure of progress should be more than how much money can be made. It should be how many lives can be made better—and whether the benefits of that progress belong to all of us.
Well damn! You did it again Adam!! I worked in software for 30 years and you are the first to articulate this. The AI groups are heading rapidly to a market apocalypse. They’re racing for a fantasy end game - and they’re not going to make it. Billions of dollars bet on a ludicrous game. I believe that they are recognizing this and trying to save themselves.
I’m wary with the tech CEOs too. Their words and actions have not inspired confidence. Actually, their words and actions inspire distrust, dislike, and a strong desire to never be anywhere near them.
Look, as we've learned frequently over the past few years, two things can be true at once.
One, this technology could reach a point where it's existentially dangerous. Because it's already dangerous.
And two, Altman, Musk, et. al. are just the type of people who would shamelessly use a moment like this to protect their interest. I don't think it's conspiratorial to notice the game of musical chairs being played with financing all of these data centers and investment and wondering what these guys know about the music stopping.
Very well explained. When the leaders of this came out about oversight and rules, I knew immediately that it was fishy. I just couldn't put my finger on what their gain would be. I thought maybe they were setting themselves up to claim innocents' when something goes very wrong. This article gave a more in-depth and believable explanation. Thanks!
Well said sir! I was myself in tech as the internet was being developed. Wow just gave away my age. But, I can tell you from 1st hand. The internet was meant to be FREE. And it was not. So I completely understand your piece. Former Snr. Tech
So while I think it would be a good idea to put some guard rails around AI development.
I have a couple of questions.
1) Why do the companies need legislation for a pause, are they themselves not the most able to slow down now?
2) Are these AI companies are looking for legislation to provide them with liability protection, if their products go off the rails and start hacking into other systems?
Adam just addressed this in this article. Maybe reread it. No snark tone here, I reread articles, too sometimes to get a better understanding of the content.
You rightfully point out the self-interest of the current AI CEOs, but that only highlights the challenge. Do we really think our dysfunctional Congress is equipped to tackle a challenge as complex as this? Do we think that a benevolent China will lean in to make the world a safer place?
Regulatory capture is a real thing that can do real damage. Once Boeing 737-8s starting falling out of the skies, it became pretty clear that Boeing had managed to capture the safety process from the FAA. Once the regulators become captives of the industry they are supposed to regulate, bad things happen. (Yet another reason why the Roberts Six and their focus on the Unitary Executive is so dangerous). Thanks for this sober (and sobering) analysis of how the game is too often played. Are our tech bros building an empire of Boeing Super-Maxes?
The biggest problem with unfettered AI is that it was trained using the internet...a mixed bag of good and bad information...by programmers who have an agenda and desire to win at all costs. These are not the kind of people who are going to want to put kill-switches, guiderails, or constraints they believe are going to cripple their creations.
So, if they are allowed to unleash intelligent machines on the world, which are collections of conflicting information yet lack real knowledge...let alone wisdom..., which have been taught to have no real self-doubt, have no moral foundations, and inherited their creators "win or die" philosophy, what is logical and predictable outcomes when these machines have innate access to the heart and soul of our electronic infrastructures when their self-interests conflict with humanities?
Science fiction has been remarkably prescient in so many ways. Screwing around with unfettered AI has been repeatedly predicted as a very dangerous prospect.
A book that really put things in a lot of perspective is Empire of AI. You should try to get an interview with Karen Hao! She talked about the Doomer vs Zoomer dynamic at these companies. She also talked about effective altruism and how it especially shaped the Amodei siblings' views (apparently Dario is walking back from it) and the other CEOs.
A few years back, my hubby bought me Alexa for a Christmas gift. Three days after Christmas, it went back to the store, unopened and unused. I told him I didn't want any item in our home that could possibly be listening to every word we said to each other. We've also turned off any TV system settings that could do the same. My life is a private life and I don't want or need to share it with anyone else unless I choose to. I only use my cell phone to send and receive messages and/or emails or to make a phone call when I am away from my landline (yes, I still maintain one of those). I have a limited number of apps on it because I don't game on it or shop on it or make reservations on it. I also make sure it is turned off when at a doctor's office or at a restaurant for dinner or when visiting friends. Due to the internet and AI, our nation has already become a place where rudeness and invasion of privacy has become a norm for many. I prefer to keep my life private. Thank you, Adam, for expressing my thoughts so precisely.
One statement you wrote says it all: Who benefits? Then that question should be followed up with: Who does it *not* benefit, who does it hurt, and what damage or negative consequences does it cause?
That question should be asked about everything. It seems to me that almost all decisions made by the most powerful people in the world boil down to two things: Money and Power - and not always in that order.
I know an AI expert. He has said the same type of thing you said. These AI company CEOs are NOT the ones to write any guidelines. There needs to be AI experts at the table but not any attached to these companies! I too, think these AI CEOs are trying to create panic to make more money. I don’t think they give a rip about any normal average citizens.
Do there need to be guardrails? Absolutely! I hope the Trump Administration and Congress uses COMMOM SENSE approaches to this issue and has AI experts NOT attached to the Trump administration or Trumps family or these AI company CEOs to set guardrails and then Congress needs to independently verify the process and help shape policy to get true guardrails and common sense policy developed and implemented with stiff penalties if policy isn’t followed.
AI can be used for all kinds of good things, IF it is used appropriately. Just like anything else in life. I’m not sure the Trump administration has the ethics and honesty to get this done. CONGRESS? Where are you?????
i think trump already said that he didn't want to reign in the AI companies. I could be wrong. I think he's all for making more money as he has no consideration for anyone.
Why should he be interested? He won´t be around to live through any negative repercussions that may come of this. And he really doesn´t give a shit about his spawn, or their spawn.
That’s EXACTLY why. He and his evil spawn are heavily invested in it.
Bwahahahaha ❣️
Trump, the reigning...queen?
🤣🤣🤣
He is icky.
Great point! We really need people outside of these AI CEOs and the executive branch of our government, Trump, and his family. Trump and his cronies have proven themselves to not be trustworthy on an almost daily basis. I’m not even sure about Congress at this point either. It’s too bad that Trump deported a lot of foreign students. We will have to count on the young brainiacs soon to help us get out of a jam in the not too distant future.
There are AI experts out there NOT tied to these huge AI CEOs. I just don’t trust these guys anymore. They have proven time and time again to be out just for themselves and no one else. Once trust is broken, it’s hard to get back………
Kari, you know where they are. And where they’ve been. And now that it’s time to get re-elected, suddenly Repubs are deciding that being a Trumphumper isn’t such a good idea. Shocker.
We must win in November! And I think with every passing day, we get closer to getting both chambers. 🙌🏼 🙏🏼 💪🏼
AI is an extraordinary human achievement—and potentially one of the most consequential technologies of our lifetime. It can transform medicine, science, education, the arts, communication and countless other areas of human life. But precisely because its possibilities are so enormous, we should be asking a fundamental question:
Who will control it, who will profit from it, and who will be protected from its dangers?
Too often, technological progress in America seems to arrive with the same underlying assumption: if it can be built, it should be built—and if it can make enormous amounts of money, even better. We have watched billionaires become multi-billionaires while ordinary people struggle to keep up with housing, healthcare, education and the basic cost of living. Now AI offers the possibility of creating yet another extraordinary concentration of wealth and power.
At some point, we have to ask: How much is enough?
My concern is not AI itself. I welcome innovation. I welcome human ingenuity. What concerns me is innovation without adequate accountability—technology developing faster than our laws, our ethical standards and our democratic institutions can respond.
AI can be used to improve lives. It can also be used to manipulate information, eliminate jobs, invade privacy, intensify inequality, concentrate economic power and fundamentally alter how citizens encounter reality. Those possibilities should not be left solely to the corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals who stand to benefit most from the technology.
This is a larger problem than AI.
We are living through an era in which money and concentrated power increasingly influence decisions that should belong to the public. And regardless of who occupies the White House at any particular moment, the underlying problem will remain if enormous economic and technological power continues to reside in the hands of a relatively small number of people and corporations.
Political leaders come and go. Concentrated power can endure.
That is why I believe the conversation about AI must also be a conversation about democracy.
We need thoughtful legislation and meaningful oversight—not to stop innovation, but to make certain that innovation serves human beings rather than simply enriching those who already possess extraordinary wealth and influence. We need transparency, accountability, privacy protections, competition, safeguards for workers and clear rules governing the uses of AI that can cause genuine harm.
The answer is not to fear technology. The answer is to govern it wisely.
America has always been capable of extraordinary invention. But our greatest accomplishment should not be creating a world in which a handful of people possess unimaginable wealth and the technological power to shape everyone else's future.
The measure of progress should be more than how much money can be made. It should be how many lives can be made better—and whether the benefits of that progress belong to all of us.
I love reading your input Ida.. thank you for this today!
You're welcome. And thank YOU!
Very helpful analysis!
Well damn! You did it again Adam!! I worked in software for 30 years and you are the first to articulate this. The AI groups are heading rapidly to a market apocalypse. They’re racing for a fantasy end game - and they’re not going to make it. Billions of dollars bet on a ludicrous game. I believe that they are recognizing this and trying to save themselves.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I’m wary with the tech CEOs too. Their words and actions have not inspired confidence. Actually, their words and actions inspire distrust, dislike, and a strong desire to never be anywhere near them.
Look, as we've learned frequently over the past few years, two things can be true at once.
One, this technology could reach a point where it's existentially dangerous. Because it's already dangerous.
And two, Altman, Musk, et. al. are just the type of people who would shamelessly use a moment like this to protect their interest. I don't think it's conspiratorial to notice the game of musical chairs being played with financing all of these data centers and investment and wondering what these guys know about the music stopping.
Very well explained. When the leaders of this came out about oversight and rules, I knew immediately that it was fishy. I just couldn't put my finger on what their gain would be. I thought maybe they were setting themselves up to claim innocents' when something goes very wrong. This article gave a more in-depth and believable explanation. Thanks!
Well said sir! I was myself in tech as the internet was being developed. Wow just gave away my age. But, I can tell you from 1st hand. The internet was meant to be FREE. And it was not. So I completely understand your piece. Former Snr. Tech
So while I think it would be a good idea to put some guard rails around AI development.
I have a couple of questions.
1) Why do the companies need legislation for a pause, are they themselves not the most able to slow down now?
2) Are these AI companies are looking for legislation to provide them with liability protection, if their products go off the rails and start hacking into other systems?
Adam just addressed this in this article. Maybe reread it. No snark tone here, I reread articles, too sometimes to get a better understanding of the content.
You rightfully point out the self-interest of the current AI CEOs, but that only highlights the challenge. Do we really think our dysfunctional Congress is equipped to tackle a challenge as complex as this? Do we think that a benevolent China will lean in to make the world a safer place?
Regulatory capture is a real thing that can do real damage. Once Boeing 737-8s starting falling out of the skies, it became pretty clear that Boeing had managed to capture the safety process from the FAA. Once the regulators become captives of the industry they are supposed to regulate, bad things happen. (Yet another reason why the Roberts Six and their focus on the Unitary Executive is so dangerous). Thanks for this sober (and sobering) analysis of how the game is too often played. Are our tech bros building an empire of Boeing Super-Maxes?
The biggest problem with unfettered AI is that it was trained using the internet...a mixed bag of good and bad information...by programmers who have an agenda and desire to win at all costs. These are not the kind of people who are going to want to put kill-switches, guiderails, or constraints they believe are going to cripple their creations.
So, if they are allowed to unleash intelligent machines on the world, which are collections of conflicting information yet lack real knowledge...let alone wisdom..., which have been taught to have no real self-doubt, have no moral foundations, and inherited their creators "win or die" philosophy, what is logical and predictable outcomes when these machines have innate access to the heart and soul of our electronic infrastructures when their self-interests conflict with humanities?
Science fiction has been remarkably prescient in so many ways. Screwing around with unfettered AI has been repeatedly predicted as a very dangerous prospect.
Well said! Absofarkinlutely!
A book that really put things in a lot of perspective is Empire of AI. You should try to get an interview with Karen Hao! She talked about the Doomer vs Zoomer dynamic at these companies. She also talked about effective altruism and how it especially shaped the Amodei siblings' views (apparently Dario is walking back from it) and the other CEOs.
Thank you Sir
A few years back, my hubby bought me Alexa for a Christmas gift. Three days after Christmas, it went back to the store, unopened and unused. I told him I didn't want any item in our home that could possibly be listening to every word we said to each other. We've also turned off any TV system settings that could do the same. My life is a private life and I don't want or need to share it with anyone else unless I choose to. I only use my cell phone to send and receive messages and/or emails or to make a phone call when I am away from my landline (yes, I still maintain one of those). I have a limited number of apps on it because I don't game on it or shop on it or make reservations on it. I also make sure it is turned off when at a doctor's office or at a restaurant for dinner or when visiting friends. Due to the internet and AI, our nation has already become a place where rudeness and invasion of privacy has become a norm for many. I prefer to keep my life private. Thank you, Adam, for expressing my thoughts so precisely.
One statement you wrote says it all: Who benefits? Then that question should be followed up with: Who does it *not* benefit, who does it hurt, and what damage or negative consequences does it cause?
That question should be asked about everything. It seems to me that almost all decisions made by the most powerful people in the world boil down to two things: Money and Power - and not always in that order.