The common analogy of AI to electricity is dangerously rosy. AI is more like fire: a transformative tool that, if mismanaged or weaponized, can spread uncontrollably with devastating consequences. This mental model better prepares us for AI's inherent risks and accelerating power.

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.

Many top AI CEOs openly admit the extinction-level risks of their work, with some estimating a 25% chance. However, they feel powerless to stop the race. If a CEO paused for safety, investors would simply replace them with someone willing to push forward, creating a systemic trap where everyone sees the danger but no one can afford to hit the brakes.

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.

AI leaders aren't ignoring risks because they're malicious, but because they are trapped in a high-stakes competitive race. This "code red" environment incentivizes patching safety issues case-by-case rather than fundamentally re-architecting AI systems to be safe by construction.

Regulating technology based on anticipating *potential* future harms, rather than known ones, is a dangerous path. This 'precautionary principle,' common in Europe, stifles breakthrough innovation. If applied historically, it would have blocked transformative technologies like the automobile or even nuclear power, which has a better safety record than oil.

Given the uncertainty about AI sentience, a practical ethical guideline is to avoid loss functions based purely on punishment or error signals analogous to pain. Formulating rewards in a more positive way could mitigate the risk of accidentally creating vast amounts of suffering, even if the probability is low.

AI companies engage in "safety revisionism," shifting the definition from preventing tangible harm to abstract concepts like "alignment" or future "existential risks." This tactic allows their inherently inaccurate models to bypass the traditional, rigorous safety standards required for defense and other critical systems.

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.