A.I. Will Not Be Properly Regulated
As A.I. threatens the livelihood of writers and actors, let's not kid ourselves.
Regulating the Rise of Machines
The lords of Silicon Valley have been whispering tepid, contradictory assurances about the future of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.). They wave their hands in a pathetic spectacle of “ethical concern” while, behind the scenes, billions of dollars are funneled into an A.I. arms race. A.I. is not being designed to benefit you. Nor is A.I. being designed for the “good of humanity.” The United States government will fail to regulate A.I. and, in doing so, forsake consumer protections as it bows to the private sector’s wanton pursuit of profit.
In the video, “The Age of AI and our Human Future,” a gruff, throaty voice tells me, “[A.I.] opens tremendous opportunities, provided it is allied with reflective organizers and that it does not become so much an end in itself that we become its prisoners, but that is entirely our choice.”
It is the voice of Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize winner, 56th Secretary of State, and prolific war criminal. When Kissinger says that the societal impact of A.I. is, “[...] entirely our choice,” he is not talking about you or me. We won’t have any say in how A.I. is developed, regulated, and implemented. To pretend otherwise is foolhardy. How A.I. develops and how it impacts our lives will be determined by reckless tech-bros “moving fast and breaking things,” billionaire venture capitalists, and ethically dubious former Secretaries of State.
Kissinger continues, “We have to approach [A.I] in a manner of construction and building. If we apply it to destruction, the consequences are absolutely incalculable [...] Therefore there is a need of nations or any political organizations to come to a recognition of the limitation of their destructive powers and some sort of system that institutionalizes it.” In theory, I agree. It is, however, deeply ironic advice to hear from the man who facilitated the illegal bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War and worked to conceal these actions from Congress. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of technologists, billionaires, and paragons of integrity like Henry Kissinger.
[Insert plug for Ken Burns & Lynn Novick’s docuseries The Vietnam War (2017)]
To predict the regulatory failures in our future, you need only consider the past.
Let’s start with the drafting of the second amendment. It reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The National Rifle Association (N.R.A.), acting as a lobbyist for gun manufacturers, has stymied attempts to regulate gun sales, ownership, and even forbade the Center for Disease Control (CDC) from studying the epidemic of gun violence. Americans are slain in grocery stores, movie theaters, and elementary schools. Meanwhile, lawmakers aren’t sure if guns are the issue. After all, there is a dearth of data on the issue of gun violence. Gee, I wonder why. Thoughts and prayers.
Fast forward to World War II. America has completed the atomic bomb, the weapon to “end all wars.” [Insert plug for Oppenheimer (2023).] Two Japanese cities are decimated, and the weapon’s inventor advocates against further use. For this, he is slandered by Congress as a disloyal communist sympathizer. Meanwhile, nuclear weapons proliferate, filling the pockets of war profiteers as The Cold War raged on. Suffice it to say, the “weapon to end all wars” didn’t and has acted as a destabilizing force in geopolitics ever since.
The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) was created in 1970. To determine which harmful pollutants needed regulation, the U.S. government turned to the experts: chemical companies like DuPont. DuPont’s list excluded perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a “forever chemical” that stays in the human body like lead. It was no accident. DuPont concealed studies showing PFOA, used in the creation of Teflon pans, was linked with increases in cancer and birth defects. DuPont proceeded to recklessly dispose of chemical waste, pouring it into the company town’s water supply and poisoning their workforce. [Insert plug for Dark Waters (2019).]
DuPont was exposed in a 1998 lawsuit and paid hundreds of millions of dollars in E.P.A. fines and legal settlements. To this day, DuPont continues to rake in billions of dollars every year. The punishment for corporate malfeasance is paltry compared to the crime, and regulatory agencies would continue to repeat their mistakes.
In 2008, predatory mortgages were routinely approved for unsuitable candidates. Wall Street proceeded to make billions trading these “subprime mortgages.” When things came crashing down, banks got bailed out while average Americans were evicted from their homes. Much noise was made, but little was done. Today, Wall Street continues trading subprime mortgages, now rebranded as “non-prime mortgages.”
Most recently, social media platforms wrought havoc during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, pushing misinformation by prioritizing engagement above all else. Congressional efforts to hold these platforms accountable have been laughable, with octogenarian senators subpoenaing Mark Zuckerburg to ask him tough questions like, “Is Twitter the same as what you do?” and "My son is dedicated to Instagram, so he'd want to be sure I mentioned him while I was here with you," -- which isn’t even a question. The proverbial crypt of lawmakers in Washington D.C. is uniquely ill-equipped for the challenge of regulating emergent A.I. Most of them don’t know how to connect their phone to WiFi.
A long history of regulatory failure has some technologists alarmed. In March of 2023, at a private gathering in San Francisco, Aza Raskin, inventor of “infinite scrolling,” and Tristan Harris, a former ethicist at Google, spoke about the dangers of A.I. As the founders of The Center for Humane Technology, they present three vital lessons: First, “When you invent a new technology, you uncover a new class of responsibilities.” Second, “If tech confers power, it starts a race.” Finally, “If you do not coordinate, the race ends in tragedy.”
Having made their money on tech innovations, two contrite ethicists are, in their own words, “here to figure out what responsibility looks like.” The Center for Humane Technology’s efforts are too little too late. However, in their defense, a history of regulatory failures hasn’t provided examples of what responsibility looks like.
Our present predicament regarding the regulation of A.I. isn’t a new issue, it's a new iteration of a longstanding issue. American government prizes capital-driven innovation and big-moneyed interests at the expense of the average American’s well-being. No one is looking out for you -- not tech billionaires, not the United States government, and certainly not Kissinger.
I want to be proven wrong. A.I. may discover new drugs for pharmaceutical companies to sell at exorbitant, unregulated prices. Perhaps A.I. will find a solution to the climate crisis while the U.S. government continues to subsidize oil companies. Or maybe A.I. will make the rich even richer while we get some new gadgets and gizmos to entertain us while the world continues to burn.
Think I’m an utter fool? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Until next week, film freaks.
smart essay! Is this one of your pieces from your summer online media class?