Since Jacob Coxons posts in September, Americans have grappled with AI risk. Last month, a POLITICO poll found 63% of Americans see at least a moderate risk that AI could destroy humanity. With lawmakers split, the public is rightly concerned: What happens if AI goes rogue? How do we prepare? Am I at risk?
Every American already lives with decisions made by AI, from loan approvals to job applications. Yet Washingtons response has been disjointed: Some in Congress propose a select committee on AI, some in industry want antitrust rules waived so labs can coordinate on safety, and the White House drafted a charter for its “Super Intelligence Force.”
It may seem like theres no way out of this mess, but urgently answering five questions would put these anxieties to rest.
Too narrow a definition of risk could miss the harms ordinary people face, while too broad a definition could bury every AI product in red tape. Depending on who you ask, risks range from economic disruption to mass casualties to extinction. California’s SB 53 sets the bar at a “foreseeable and material risk” of more than 50 deaths or serious injuries, or $1 billion in damage. New York’s RAISE Act doubles SB 53s casualty threshold from 50 to 100, but focuses on instances where a developer “caused or materially enabled” covered damages during the development process.
AI EXTINCTION WARNINGS DOMINATE HEADLINES AFTER EX-ANTHROPIC EMPLOYEE’S VIRAL POST
Last month, Anthropic’s threat intelligence report found researchers using Claude in ways that could support bioweapons development. Anthropic banned the accounts even though it couldnt determine intent, since the same work could produce vaccines. Some call it legitimate research; others call it nefarious. The government needs to draw that line now, as it decides which dangers the public hears about.
When you buy a car, you know someone has inspected it. Americans deserve the same clarity in who decides whether AI is safe. Lawmakers and industry stakeholders increasingly agree that tech companies shouldn’t grade their own homework. That’s where consensus stops.
The evaluation ecosystem is thin relative to the responsibility regulators would like to place on it. Model Evaluation and Threat Research and Apollo Research are among the few organizations floated as neutral arbiters. Lab funding to grow this space would raise neutrality questions, yet the government may hesitate to grant private groups that authority.
Many lawmakers would rather Commerce’s AI testing center take it on. It has testing agreements wi
