The third way: Navigating AI’s knife edge

When it comes to the impending AI takeover, two main camps of belief get the most attention: those who welcome technological singularity, believing it will deliver humanity into a utopia of universal basic income, freedom, and prosperity, and those who deeply oppose it, fearing it will render humanity useless and usher in the apocalypse.

But is there a middle ground — a reasonable center that embraces the good AI offers but opposes the dystopia it threatens?

BlazeTV hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman believe there is.

On a recent episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” the duo spoke with Samuel Hammond, an artificial intelligence researcher at the Foundation for American Innovation, about the “sweet middle ground” of artificial intelligence.

Hammond acknowledges the dual nature of artificial intelligence. “It's the thing that's going to build us all-new efficient defended software, but also in the meantime enable hackers to hack that software; it's a thing that will discover new drugs but also create new viruses. And to be able to hold both those realities in your mind is incredibly taxing.”

In the same way that the Industrial Revolution created both wealth and the administrative and welfare states, so the AI takeover will have both benefits and drawbacks, he says.

Keeperman inquires about the regulatory measures being taken by AI developers to mitigate the potential damage.

Hammond admits that regulation is difficult because of the sheer scope of AI. Like electricity, “it’s this massive umbrella term,” he says.

“The areas where people have legitimate concerns are easier to gerrymander, right? It's things like designing novel bioweapons or very powerful, autonomous malware that could hack into your program and go rogue. These things are difficult to keep in a box,” he explains.

On the upside, however, “getting to advanced AI first will have major national security implications.”

“The fact that we have a friendly U.S.-based company that built a system like Mythos first that could, in principle, hack into all these different critical pieces of infrastructure is an incredible fortune for us, right?” says Hammond, noting that this allows the U.S. to “patch up and harden [its] systems” before other countries reach the same capabilities.

On the other hand, the U.S. government currently has little control over the companies that are leading AI development.

As of now, these companies “are being benevolent with their use of this and certainly have the intentions to try to be sort of trustworthy and good stewards of this technology, but as a matter of state governance, do we actually have any greater control over this technology than, let's say, China?” Keeperman asks.

Hammond admits that we’re on precarious terrain.

“I think of us as sort of on this knife edge between a Chinese-style panopticon or some kind of anarchy where things kind of fall apart,” he says, advocating for a “third way.”

“We need a strong state to enforce property and contract and our rights, but that state can't be completely divorced from rule of law,” he says. At the same time, however, “democracies have committed genocide,” whereas “private corporations just want to maximize shareholder value.”

In the end, Hammond urges us to reject both utopian dreams and apocalyptic fears in favor of a pragmatic middle course: building institutions strong enough to govern AI’s immense power, yet constrained enough to prevent it from becoming a tool of tyranny or disorder.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.