Artificial Intelligence, Real Consequences: A Call for Action

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fundamentally changing our daily lives, from powering self-driving cars to solving complex healthcare problems. But as AI applications and use cases evolve, there is an increasing debate over the need for regulations. True to its capitalist roots, the U.S. government hasn’t imposed any restrictions on AI yet, while Europe has already moved forward with strict rules. As such, The Acronym decided to assess the pros and cons of AI regulations, evaluating the European Union’s approach and considering what it could mean for the U.S.

Advocates for regulating AI development point to the inherent risks of allowing a technology with such a profound impact on everything around us to go unchecked. We don’t have to look far for examples—consider how social media, without an adequate regulatory framework, started as a fun way to connect with friends and family, but has become a tool for misinformation and voter manipulation. Or how the lack of regulations around firearms has made gun violence a pervasive issue in our society—so much so that elementary school students doing active shooter drills doesn’t shock us anymore. None of these examples are normal, yet their overall impact is nowhere close to the risks AI poses. Therefore, there is a solid case for smart, strategic regulations on AI.

AI programs are now driving our cars, which–while once the stuff of science fiction–poses significant public safety risks. As a teenager going through tedious but important Driver’s Ed lessons, I wonder if self-driving vehicles will also face as much regulatory scrutiny to ensure AI capabilities are road-ready (or, worse, that ambitious corporations don’t over promise capabilities). Beyond that, as consumers, how can we ensure our data isn’t used in these AI models without our permission? And how will our privacy be respected when AI software knows more about us than our closest friends and family? Will consumer privacy depend on each company’s ethics and policies? There’s a need for regulations to ensure all companies are doing the right thing. Furthermore, AI regulations are essential to increase transparency and fairness so we can all understand and know how decisions are being made. If AI begins to take key roles in decision-making within society, we must ensure these models are fair and unbiased, unlike past iterations of such models. Finally, regulations could provide a safeguard against Terminator’s “Skynet” scenario. With the rapid pace of innovation and investment, AI is becoming more intelligent at an exponential rate, and is on a fast-track to surpass human intelligence. At some point, we need to ensure AI doesn’t become too powerful to be controlled by humans. We cannot rely on corporates that are driven by shareholder wealth maximization motives to self-govern. The government, with its primary responsibility for public safety, needs to step in and do its job.

While the case for regulation is strong and logical, it may not hold up in the practical realities of today’s world. The key argument is that even if the U.S. slows down AI evolution to ensure social responsibility, it won’t stop other countries like China, where AI development is progressing rapidly with minimal regulatory constraints. Moreover, if companies find U.S. regulations too restrictive, they might relocate to other countries, taking innovation and jobs with them. We saw this play out when, just a few weeks ago, SAP, a European technology giant, warned that the EU AI Act could cause Europe to fall behind the U.S. and China. Like with climate change, an AI act requires multilateral commitment. Moreover, it could place a heavy burden on developers and small AI startups, who may lack the resources to comply with complex regulations. Overly restrictive policies could discourage investment in AI research and development, stalling technological progress. Finally, could any regulatory framework even keep up with such rapidly evolving technology? Any regulation is likely to become outdated soon and could ultimately become ineffective or even harmful.

Consider the EU AI Act as a case study: it uses a risk-based approach to categorize AI systems based on their potential impact on public safety and fundamental rights. The EU Act puts stringent restrictions on high-risk systems—like those used in healthcare, law enforcement, and transportation—while also prioritizing citizen privacy by banning real-time biometric surveillance in public spaces. While it’s too early to say whether these regulations will succeed or how they will impact the EU economy and AI development, the EU has undoubtedly taken a lead in setting a regulatory precedent and offering a template or case study on what can be achieved. This leaves the U.S. in an unfamiliar territory—we certainly have the resources and know-how to lead the world in addressing this challenge. The question is whether our already fragile political system can stand up to Big Tech and whether diplomacy could encourage other nations to follow suit (similar to how we got China to agree on climate change 10 years ago). The goal is to ensure we remain the masters of AI in the future, not the other way around.