The Big Question About AI: Who Decides?

By David Corn  May 5, 2023

A robot with artificial intelligence on display at a conference in Germany this past week. Frank Hoermann/AP

A few weeks ago, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing about TikTok, the widely popular social media app owned by a Chinese company, and the legislators were supposed to focus on the possible privacy and national security implications of a foreign company obtaining so much data about Americans. There was much howling from hawkish members of the committee about the threat posed by China, but the session illuminated another troublesome matter: Some of the folks in charge of overseeing significant tech issues don’t even have a basic understanding of this stuff. In one telling exchange, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) asked Shou Zi Chew, TikTok’s chief executive, “If I have a TikTok app on my phone and my phone is on my home wifi network, does TikTok access that network?” Uh, duh—if the phone is using wifi. Across the internet, there was much eye-rolling.

Again and again, the nation’s top legislators have demonstrated that many within Congress are techno-boobs who do not understand the industry they are supposed to watch and the dilemmas they must address. Remember when Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg appeared before a Senate committee five years ago? Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked him, “Is Twitter the same as what you do?” And Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) queried, “How do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?” Zuckerberg blinked and replied, “Senator, we run ads.” Insert face-palm emoji.

This is no laughing matter. As we hurtle toward the world of artificial intelligence—with its potential wonders and profound dangers—there is a tremendously important question that must be answered: Who will guide and control this new force?

As of now, AI is in the hands of an array of corporations that are scurrying for dominance in the field. Their topmost concern tends not to be what most benefits our species but market position and profits. Can AI and key decisions about it be left to vest-wearing tech bros (and sisters) and their VC overlords? Especially when some technologists (and moviemakers) foresee AI as a threat to the existence of humanity? At the very least, it will likely reshape much of the economy and disrupt much of society.

Economist Robert Reich recently had an interesting observation. Noting that former Google chair Eric Schmidt has characterized AI as the most powerful technology ever invented, he pointed out the problem with easy and unrestrained access to it: “It’s akin to saying at the beginning of the nuclear age, what would it be like if everyone could play with plutonium and uranium?”

At this stage, there’s no telling what changes AI will bring about. It could yield enriching experiences in life and work. It could lead to artificial autonomous machines that endanger humans. Now is the moment when communal reflection and decision-making is required to ensure AI is developed and used safely. We need deliberation—and perhaps regulation—before AI gallops away and becomes uncontrollable.

Unfortunately, this sort of contemplation is not what competitive tech companies do. A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story headlined “In A.I. Race, Microsoft and Google Choose Speed Over Caution.” The newspaper reported that employees at each of these behemoths had raised concerns about their company’s new AI chatbot and warned that it could generate dangerous statements and disinformation. Microsoft and Google went ahead with the releases. “The aggressive moves by the normally risk-averse companies were driven by a race to control what could be the tech industry’s next big thing—generative A.I., the powerful new technology that fuels those chatbots,” the Times observed.

That hardly inspires confidence in the judgment of the techies at the top.

Case in point: Elon Musk. This tech wunderkind with the maturity of a 12-year-old took over Twitter. He claimed he was doing so out of a public-minded devotion to free speech and productive political discourse. Yet he allied himself with the alt-right and conspiracy theories, and in a series of misguided moves seemingly driven by spite, he has undermined the platform and advanced an assortment of noxious notions. Propelled by the (justifiable) desire to make money at Twitter (or lose less money at Twitter), he has implemented numerous steps that have made the world worse, allowing for the greater spread of hate speech, disinformation, and conspiracy theories.

Musk is a prominent player in the AI field. In April, he joined with more than 1,000 tech leaders and researchers, including Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple, to urge a six-month timeout in the rush to develop AI. In a public letter, they cautioned that AI presents “profound risks to society and humanity.” The signatories were blunt:

Advanced AI could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources. Unfortunately, this level of planning and management is not happening, even though recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control.

Though Musk initialed this letter, he has been active in the AI gold rush. The New York Times reported last week:

Musk has ramped up his own A.I. activities, while arguing publicly about the technology’s hazards. He is in talks with Jimmy Ba, a researcher and professor at the University of Toronto, to build a new A.I. company called X.AI, three people with knowledge of the matter said. He has hired top A.I. researchers from Google’s DeepMind at Twitter. And he has spoken publicly about creating a rival to ChatGPT that generates politically charged material without restrictions.

Musk apparently is worried about what others will do with AI and believes he can better handle it himself. That’s certainly not what his tenure at Twitter suggests. In any event, should he be allowed to make decisions unilaterally that could have consequences that threaten humanity? Should any one person or corporation?

On Monday, Geoffrey Hinton, an AI pioneer, quit his job at Google so he could publicly speak out about the risks of AI. “It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things,” Hinton, often hailed as the Godfather of AI, said in an interview. He raised a host of possible problems caused by AI: a flood of false information to such an extent that people will “not be able to know what is true anymore”; immense dislocation in job markets; and, yes, killer robots who think (if you can call it that) that they know more than us. Hinton warned of an AI arms race between Google, Microsoft, and others that might be impossible to stop. He proposed global regulation of AI.

Which brings us back to Congress and its techno numbskulls. If you don’t want Musk or the profit-chasing rulers of Microsoft and Google to be making the tough calls about AI, we must turn to the government. Admittedly, the record of government intervention in such matters is mixed. We still have too many nuclear weapons, though arms control agreements did slow down the nuclear arms race. We have not yet sufficiently regulated energy use to prevent catastrophic climate change. Republican politicians have thwarted the popular demand for laws to address gun violence. But we have instituted systems and rules to make transportation, food, workplaces, and prescription drugs safer.

Can this be done with AI? Last month, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) circulated within the Senate what he called a "framework [for AI] that outlines a new regulatory regime that would prevent potentially catastrophic damage to our country while simultaneously making sure the U.S. advances and leads in this transformative technology." (Read more about it here.) And other government players are taking similar steps, including the Commerce Department, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

How much faith can we have that Congress and the federal government will do something about AI and get it right? Even if congressional hearings sometimes are dominated by nitwits, there are smart legislators with foresight. Not long ago, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tweeted about AI: “Something is coming. We aren’t ready.”

It’s easy to be hyperbolic and apocalyptic about AI. But even one of its creators is freaked out. (See Dr. Frankenstein.) Clearly, we cannot trust private companies (or Elon Musk) on this crucial matter. Yet our current political system may not be up to this monumental task. I asked ChatGPT, the AI app, who should control or regulate artificial intelligence. It replied, “The question of who should control or regulate artificial intelligence (AI) is complex and multifaceted, and there is no one definitive answer.”

That’s not too helpful. The chatbot pointed to industry, government, and stakeholders (which would include academia and civil society). It noted that “ongoing dialogue and collaboration will be necessary to ensure that AI is developed and used in a way that is beneficial to society as a whole.” No sh-t, Sherlock. One need not be a brainiac to know that. But before we can decide what to do about AI, we need to decide who gets to decide.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

Due to logistical issues, we had to produce this issue of Our Land earlier in the week than usual. The judges determined that it would be unfair to proclaim a victor with so much of the week left. Many winners, it turns out, often come in just under the wire. Why are so many stupid things said on Thursdays and Fridays? I don’t know. When venture capitalists invest $20 million into Our Land, we will commission a study of that.

But the judges did want to recognize one of our more reliable contestants: Fox News host Jesse Watters. On The Five, he engaged in this exchange with liberal commentator Jessica Tarlov.

Jesse Watters: "Now, I saw on the way in to work an illegal immigration family digging through the trash looking for recyclables."

Jessica Tarlov: “How did you know they were illegal?”

Watters: “You can tell. I can tell. I’m a city guy.”

No doubt, Watters wants the chair left open by the defenestration of Tucker Carlson and was burnishing his racist credentials. The judges are sorry that they cannot award Watters the winner’s cup this week, but they have a strong hunch that had there been a full contest, he would have finished first. And...there’s always next week.

The Mailbag

The recent issue on President Joe Biden’s launch of his reelection effort prompted at least one reader to watch the campaign video Biden released. Kenneth Marion wrote:

Your analysis and comments about the Biden kickoff are a great example of your work. Because of you I watched the video and found it inspiring. Even as a senior citizen, I had mixed feelings about the president's age, but he is clearly surrounded by talented people, and he has a clear message.

Pen Harms, a regular correspondent, made a connection I had missed:

After having read American Psychosis, and somewhat recovered from the frightening revelations contained in your book, I believe Biden is absolutely correct in that the job must be finished, and the Republicans "put in their place" with the hope that MAGA will be totally defeated, and hopefully, common sense will somehow return to the nation's consciousness.

Biden’s slogan—“Finish the job”—certainly can be applied to the task of countering the right-wing extremism that threatens American democracy.

It’s no shocker that readers reacted strongly to articles about America’s gun insanity. Last week, I recalled the kerfuffle that transpired when Barack Obama observed in 2008 that some folks cling to guns and religion and wrote about the GOP merging guns and God. People had thoughts.

Sharon Irvine emailed:

As a Christian, I am completely stunned by the claim that we have a God-given right to have guns. The New Testament is clear in its statements: do not return evil for evil, do not return violence with violence, but speak up about injustice and wrong. We do have a right to self-defense, but with an armed nation we could have everyone shooting at each other. I am alarmed by the recent shootings of unarmed people. 

Michele Missner had this to say:

How did God get in the equation at all? Obama got it right, as did Hillary with her deplorables statement. This is usually the so-called pro-life group with their love of guns, not life. This clinging to guns and using them inappropriately is how we’ve become a very violent place. Polls say the people don’t agree with right wing legislators about guns, abortion, voting and yet here we are with seemingly no will to even raise the age of gun purchase from 18 to 21. It’s a sad situation with mass killings in schools and elsewhere as well as high rates of suicide and homicide. Will it ever end? George W. Bush let the law on banning assault weapons sunset. It was a stupid decision. Here we are with no will and/or fear of the NRA determining dangerous policy. 

Edward Hackett wrote:

The NRA and the gun lobby have bought and paid enough politicians that it is unlikely that we will get any meaningful laws passed to control guns. The only possible solution will be a groundswell of support from the public at large to require new laws and not elect or re-elect politicians who support this violence. All politicians love children, but they love guns more. When a politician sends out a Christmas card showing his whole family with guns around the Christmas tree, and there is no public outcry, not even from our supposed religious leaders, I feel this is a lost cause. It would appear that our religious leaders and politicians all suffer from the same problem. They love the cash flow from the gun supporters. After all, the dead don't vote, don't donate, or go to church to make donations. Always follow the money. It tells the truth.

I would amend this analysis. It’s not just about the money. It’s the enthusiasm. GOP politicians are not merely eager for pro-gun campaign cash; they fear being challenged in Republican primary elections if they do not embrace the gun fetishists. These voters are organized and fierce. They will seek revenge if a politician supports the most moderate gun-safety measures. Consequently, unless citizens who yearn for an end to gun madness engage in politics as fervently, the gun cultists will continue to maintain a political advantage, despite their minority status.

Dell Erwin had a complaint:

Love your articles, but I wish you would use short paragraphs. Just forget the grammar rules you were probably taught and focus on readability. As a retired readability editor, I always recommended that paragraphs never be more than six to eight lines—or shorter! Plus, that makes text look easier to read and more appealing—less ponderous. For example, look at Robert Reich’s written emails—short paragraphs because he’s an expert on effective communication with mass audiences. Keep your long paragraphs for doctoral dissertations—not your general readers, pleeezzzz.

Thanks for the advice, Dell.

I will keep it in mind.

Rebecca Pollack also had a gripe:

I signed up for your newsletter in support of Mother Jones and because I thought it would be of interest. I have not become a paid subscriber because even when it is coming from someone whose views match mine, I do not appreciate endless pejorative comments. Let the facts speak. 

Ouch! There might be pejorative comments in Our Land, but endless? All things eventually come to an end.

Laurette LeVine shared a different opinion:

Just read your latest Our Land: “God, Guns, and the Clinging GOP.” Terrific! I had originally signed up for your free series of essays thinking I would opt out at the end. But that didn't happen. I just subscribed today. The first reason that this 70-year-old signed on was your pithy, get-down-to-it writing that is always precise and combined with your insight and vision It makes for a winning combo sorely needed today.

The second reason goes back to the presidential election of 2016 when he-who-must-not-be-named- won. The next night, still in shock and major dismay, we tuned into Rachel Maddow's show, which was consoling at that time of upheaval. She paraphrased an action idea from Timothy Snyder's book, On Tyranny. Basically, give help to causes you believe in. If it's free speech, subscribe to newspapers etc. Which, as a retiree on fixed income, I have done. And here I go again! Thanks for writing your articles!

I am honored and humbled, Laurette. Many thanks.

Rob Zeller had a recommendation:

In your Our Land piece of May 2, you mentioned listening to KCSN while in LA. The station was described as an eclectic mix of new and old. That sounds like the description of WFUV at Fordham University at 90.7. I listen through streaming on the computer since reception on the car radio is so-so. Give it a listen. BTW, Dennis Elsas from your WNEW days works there from 2:00 to 6:00.

Good idea, Rob. I do listen to WFUV when I’m in the New York area and can get it. And I have it on right now. Three cheers for Dennis Elsas, a musical guide from my youth. Hope to hear him soon.

Bob Gee shared a similar suggestion:

You really struck a nerve by spotlighting KCSN. I was thrilled to find someone else live streaming it and believing in the idea of “stretching the musical horizon” by listening to music not fed to each of us by an algorithm. In that spirit, I also offer you CHIRP radio in Chicago and FBI radio in Sydney, Australia. Gems like KCSN, CHIRP and FBI are not only enjoyable to listen to but might deserve a modest donation from music enthusiasts to help keep them running…not unlike the $5 per month I gladly pay for your gem of a newsletter.

Good idea, Bob. All the stations mentioned above are independent and accept tax-deductible donations. (Check with your accountant about contributions to FBI radio in Australia.) I’ve supported KCSN as well as local low-power radio station WOWD, which is based outside of Washington, DC, features an eclectic mix of shows, and streams online.

Bob Gold had a message about Moxie’s recent comments:

I think you ought to give the dog groomer a rest and let Moxie's "freak flag fly." Doesn't bodily autonomy apply to Moxie as well? As a 60s throwback, I am totally supportive of the shaggy look for Moxie.

If it were up to Moxie, she would never get a haircut. The groomer terrifies her. But then she would overheat in the summer, be overrun with tangled hair, and perhaps have skin trouble. Once we domesticated and started breeding canines 30,000 years ago, we assumed certain responsibilities. One of them is carrying a trembling 39-pound dog into the groomer’s. Speaking of Moxie…

MoxieCam™

“Moxie, you have a ball, and your friend Havi has a stick.”

“Very observant.”

“Which is better?”

“I’m not going to dignify that question with an answer.”

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

May 2, 2023: President Joe Biden’s crusade; KSCN’s eclectic mix of new and old music; and more.

April 29, 2023: Of guns, God, and a clinging GOP; a useful idiot is gone from Fox; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Ron Johnson); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more.

April 25, 2023: Tucker Carlson’s long con; Blacktop Wasteland and a helluva ride; and more.

April 22, 2023: Robert Kennedy, Jr., we wish we hardly knew ye; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Fox News); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

April 18, 2023: Go take a walk; comparing the Murdochs and the Roys; The Big Door Prize puzzles; and more.

April 15, 2023: Donald Trump’s inanity goes nuclear—literally; more on that disappearing Columbia Journalism Review town hall; a great endorsement of Our Land; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Tim Scott); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

April 11, 2023: The Trump-Russia town hall that disappeared; Matt Taibbi on the run; the Milk Carton Kids reappear; Adam Sandler’s slam-dunk in the Hustle; and more.

April 8, 2023: Clarence and Ginni Thomas, enough already!; the Trump circus in NYC; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special Arraignment Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

April 4, 2023: Why Fox can survive its mega-scandal; Bruce Springsteen’s rock ‘n’ roll revival; a new rock-chick-lit novel from Susanna Hoffs of the Bangles; and more.

April 1, 2023: Trump’s indictment is yet another stress-test for America; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Speaker Kevin McCarthy); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.