Why wait for AI to revolutionize the world when you can slap it with regulations before it even learns to walk? It’s like they’re preemptively protecting us from the horrors of progress. Because who needs cutting-edge technology when you can have a hefty dose of bureaucratic interference? It’s the perfect recipe for ensuring that the only thing advancing faster than technology is the government’s knack for stifling it. Welcome to the era of regulatory overreach, where even the future needs a permission slip to exist.
The Biden administration is prioritizing ideological objectives over innovation by weaponizing an executive agency to excessively regulate emerging AI technology even before it becomes commercially available. This action is a significant escalation in empowering groups that challenge the freedoms of speech and work ordinary Americans enjoy.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, in response to President Biden’s AI executive order, has made significant advancements to its “AI Safety Institute.” As part of this effort, Paul Christiano has been appointed as the head of AI safety. A well-known figure in the “Effective Altruism” movement, Christiano is popular for his controversial belief that AI has a 50% chance of leading to human extinction. His appointment has caused a stir among experts and the public alike.
The recent appointment seems to be part of a growing trend where advocates of Effective Altruism are finding their way into influential government roles. Dustin Moskowitz, a prominent figure in both Effective Altruism and as a co-founder of Facebook, has made headlines for his significant political contributions, including over $50 million towards President Biden’s election campaign. Moskowitz is considered a mega-donor; his $50 million has given him access to the most powerful office in the world.
Moskowitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, are also major sponsors of Open Philanthropy, a nonprofit associated with Effective Altruism that has spent vast sums lobbying for greater government oversight of the AI sector. This alignment raises questions about the potential implications of such appointments and their impact on broader policy directions.
For instance, a proposal by the Open Philanthropy-funded “Center for AI Policy” suggests establishing a new “Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Administration” capable of declaring a “state of emergency” and exerting sweeping powers, such as seizing AI systems, issuing restraining orders against the use of specific AI technologies, and enforcing a general moratorium on AI development. These extreme measures reflect a deep-seated belief in the need for central control over AI to avert potential catastrophes.
Critics, including Matthew Mittelsteadt from the Mercatus Center, argue that these severe safety regulations could disastrously hinder the public sector’s ability to keep up with AI advancements in the private sector. By imposing stringent AI safety regulations, the administration may overlook practical budgetary and administrative considerations, potentially stalling federal AI initiatives entirely.
The influence of Effective Altruists within the Biden administration helps to consolidate power among various left-leaning groups, each vying to shape AI policy to suit their agendas. This has led to efforts to politically censor AI technologies, exemplified by actions such as those taken by Google with its Gemini project. A report from Google detailed how the Biden executive order influenced the creation of their “Responsible AI” team, which has been accused of embedding biased ideologies into AI systems.
As the political landscape around AI evolves, there are genuine concerns about the misuse of AI for purposes such as threats, impersonation, fraud, or handling classified information, which are traditionally managed through interpersonal communication regulations. However, recent directives like the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s report on AI Accountability, spurred by Biden’s executive order, aim to regulate AI more broadly across its lifecycle, raising fears of overreach.
The direction being taken by the Biden administration could set a precedent for heavily funded ideologues to exert significant control and censorship over AI, thereby impacting the civil liberties, political neutrality, and economic prosperity that AI could otherwise promote. This situation calls for vigilance and active participation from the public to prevent a minority with disproportionate influence from dictating the future of personal technology use under the guise of preventing dystopian outcomes.
