A political philosophy perspective argues that despite a libertarian preference for no regulation, the potential for catastrophic AI risks makes state involvement a "tragic necessity." The national security apparatus will not ignore weaponizable models, making controlled "perpetual interference" the only practical path.

The principle that governments must hold a monopoly on overwhelming force should extend to superintelligence. AI at that level has the power to disorient political systems and financial markets, making its private control untenable. The state cannot be secondary to any private entity in this domain.

An Anthropic alignment lead publicly stated a >10% chance of human extinction from AI within a decade. This creates a paradox: if a company truly believes its work carries such a high risk of global catastrophe, the logical response would be to shut down, not to continue development while trying to solve alignment.

If an AI model like Anthropic's Mythos is capable of causing 'cataclysmic' economic damage, it may be too powerful for a private company to control. This raises the serious argument for nationalizing such technology, similar to how governments control bioweapons or nuclear capabilities, to manage the immense systemic risk.

The narrative that AI could be catastrophic ('summoning the demon') is used strategically. It creates a sense of danger that justifies why a small, elite group must maintain tight control over the technology, thereby warding off both regulation and competition.

The heads of Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google are advocating for AI regulation by comparing its existential risk to nuclear power. This analogy intentionally elevates the threat level beyond typical tech disruption (like social media) to necessitate government oversight and international treaties, similar to nuclear arms control.

The comparison to nuclear proliferation suggests AI's potential for harm is too great for private, profit-driven companies to manage. A prominent, typically anti-government technologist argued that President Truman would have nationalized AI, indicating the tech has reached a level of danger requiring state control.

The US and China view AI superiority as a national security imperative comparable to nuclear weapons, ensuring massive state funding. However, this creates a major risk for investors, as governments may eventually decide to nationalize or control leading AI companies for military purposes, compressing multiples.

By constantly comparing AI's power to nuclear weapons, tech leaders are making a powerful argument against their own independence. If the technology is truly an existential threat, it logically follows that it should be government-controlled for national security, not managed by venture-backed startups.