https://arab.news/9rceu
The technology you choose has become a political decision. While blockchain is the preferred choice for those seeking a decentralized system, artificial intelligence is backed by those who want a centralized system that relies on a central authority. We are starting to notice this political divide in the decisions around stablecoins and the traction between private actors and governments. But the real political battle is now focused on AI. There is an increasing belief that laws to regulate AI, whether at a national or international level, can determine who the winners are, from states to companies or even political parties.
It is hence not surprising to see a severe battle in the US between those who are looking to try to benefit from regulation and those who are looking to keep the AI field open. This was very clear when David Sacks, the White House AI and cryptocurrency czar, last week accused Anthropic of pursuing a “sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fearmongering.” Sacks added that the company was “principally responsible for the state regulatory frenzy that is damaging the startup ecosystem.”
This came following the Anthropic leadership’s declaration that described AI as a “real and mysterious creature” and highlighted its risks and unpredictability, especially in terms of job displacement. In the view of many, this was done to influence how regulation will be written and for it to be in favor of the company.
What Sacks is putting forward is that the space for innovation needs to stay open. He sees Anthropic’s push for the rapid implementation of AI regulation as a way to stop new companies from emerging by setting regulatory standards that only large and well-funded companies can respect and sustain. This will effectively shortcut the race to innovation and create high entry barriers and high compliance costs while innovation is still bustling. It is refreshing and rare to see a government standing up to protect innovation; this is something European entrepreneurs can only dream of. This stance in favor of innovation and entrepreneurship is what sets the US apart.
This does not mean that the White House does not see the need for regulation, rather it just does not want to speed up the process. This is also why the White House is looking to prevent states from issuing AI regulation for 10 years: so that a federal standard can be established that will avoid a patchwork of rules and a fragmented landscape for companies to operate in.
On the other hand, Anthropic, while agreeing on the need for federal-level regulation, is pushing for state-level action in the meantime. Clearly, state proposals would allow each state to pass its own AI rules and, according to Anthropic, this is needed to tackle urgent risks, especially in sensitive fields such as healthcare and finance. This means different states with different regulations.
Companies like OpenAI, Meta, Google, IBM and Andreessen Horowitz are also pushing for the adoption of national rules over state laws. The fact that California is considering the most AI regulation of all states shows that the divide is not only between companies and government but is also political.
Soon after taking office, President Donald Trump repealed his predecessor Joe Biden’s executive order on AI, judging that it would put US companies, innovation and competitiveness at a disadvantage compared to international firms. But what does AI regulation mean? What are the objectives and, more importantly, how can they be implemented?
First, each political party has a different view of what is important in terms of regulation. So, there is no single, unified view.
The left, including the Democratic Party, focuses mostly on safety, ethics and social impact, supporting rules that address, for example, potential discrimination within AI. This line of political thinking looks to apply strong oversight and safeguards for those with the same political and social beliefs as they have. This was very clear in Biden’s executive order and was why it was labeled “woke AI.”
On the other side, Republicans focus on innovation, competitiveness and US leadership. This translates into fewer and lighter rules, which would allow companies to develop AI without being constrained by strict regulations.
It is not that the White House does not see the need for regulation, rather it just does not want to speed up the process.
Khaled Abou Zahr
The impact of AI on our everyday lives is so vast that it is difficult to imagine any regulation being established quickly and efficiently. Debate around regulation ranges from cybersecurity threats to intellectual property rights. It covers privacy and data protection, as well as transparency, safety and reliability. Moreover, there is a focus on keeping human oversight on AI. It is a massive construction endeavor that not only challenges political beliefs but also a vision of society and the future of the world. It also has ramifications for energy use and competitiveness.
The political divide does not stop domestically but goes beyond — it is also on the geopolitical landscape. For example, while the US generally pushes for the private sector to lead in AI, China has a more state-directed approach. It looks to AI for social management, as well as to acquire strategic advantages that could support strong economic growth. It is not surprising to see that, in the end, technology and its adoption are a mirror of cultural, political and social beliefs. This also foresees that competition and political divides will extend to technology.
One point everyone agrees on is that they do not wish to see AI become free from human control. The emergence of an autonomous superintelligence is something the left, the right, China and the US all do not want to see. Short of this, the battle both on technology and politics will converge and stay fierce.
- Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi