The UK's strategy of criminalizing specific harmful AI outcomes, like non-consensual deepfakes, is more effective than the EU AI Act's approach of regulating model size and development processes. Focusing on harmful outcomes is a more direct way to mitigate societal damage.
Related Insights
The current industry approach to AI safety, which focuses on censoring a model's "latent space," is flawed and ineffective. True safety work should reorient around preventing real-world, "meatspace" harm (e.g., data breaches). Security vulnerabilities should be fixed at the system level, not by trying to "lobotomize" the model itself.
AI video platform Synthesia built its governance on three pillars established at its founding: never creating digital replicas without consent, moderating all content before generation, and collaborating with governments on practical regulation. This proactive framework is core to their enterprise strategy.
The emphasis on long-term, unprovable risks like AI superintelligence is a strategic diversion. It shifts regulatory and safety efforts away from addressing tangible, immediate problems like model inaccuracy and security vulnerabilities, effectively resulting in a lack of meaningful oversight today.
The discourse around AI risk has matured beyond sci-fi scenarios like Terminator. The focus is now on immediate, real-world problems such as AI-induced psychosis, the impact of AI romantic companions on birth rates, and the spread of misinformation, requiring a different approach from builders and policymakers.
When addressing AI's 'black box' problem, lawmaker Alex Boris suggests regulators should bypass the philosophical debate over a model's 'intent.' The focus should be on its observable impact. By setting up tests in controlled environments—like telling an AI it will be shut down—you can discover and mitigate dangerous emergent behaviors before release.
The European Union's strategy for leading in AI focuses on establishing comprehensive regulations from Brussels. This approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. model, which prioritizes private sector innovation and views excessive regulation as a competitive disadvantage that stifles growth.
Instead of trying to legally define and ban 'superintelligence,' a more practical approach is to prohibit specific, catastrophic outcomes like overthrowing the government. This shifts the burden of proof to AI developers, forcing them to demonstrate their systems cannot cause these predefined harms, sidestepping definitional debates.
Contrary to its controversial reputation, New York's RAISE Act is narrowly focused on catastrophic risks. The bill's threshold for action is extraordinarily high: an AI must contribute to 100 deaths, $1 billion in damage, or a fully automated crime, far from regulating everyday AI applications.
Other scientific fields operate under a "precautionary principle," avoiding experiments with even a small chance of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., creating dangerous new lifeforms). The AI industry, however, proceeds with what Bengio calls "crazy risks," ignoring this fundamental safety doctrine.
An FDA-style regulatory model would force AI companies to make a quantitative safety case for their models before deployment. This shifts the burden of proof from regulators to creators, creating powerful financial incentives for labs to invest heavily in safety research, much like pharmaceutical companies invest in clinical trials.