Rather than being treated with the same caution as household appliances, artificial intelligence is currently subjected to significantly less regulation, a disparity that former Attorney General Richard Hermer describes as “startlingly wrong.” In a recent commentary, he warned that without an immediate shift toward robust international legal frameworks and widespread public engagement, humanity risks losing control over its own future.
During his two-year tenure as attorney general, Hermer noted that national security remained his primary focus, encompassing threats ranging from terrorism and armed conflict to nuclear proliferation and the climate crisis. While acknowledging the gravity of these challenges, he emphasized that established intelligence and defense institutions are well-equipped to manage them. In contrast, he characterized the danger posed by AI as existing on an entirely different scale, posing an existential risk to the species with a limited window of time available to mitigate it.
Hermer pointed out that although individuals closely involved in AI development have long flagged these extraordinary threats, public discourse only began to gain traction recently. He cited the hacking incident involving Hugging Face and the subsequent resignation of Jacob Coxon from Anthropic as pivotal moments that finally brought the issue to the forefront of societal attention.
Describing this moment as a critical opportunity, Hermer called for increased urgency in international coordination to regulate frontier AI. He argued that the direction of AI development must not be left solely to major powers such as China and the United States, nor to large technology corporations. Instead, he insisted that there must be meaningful public engagement to ensure AI is shaped to benefit humanity broadly, rather than consolidating power in the hands of a few.
Hilarious comparison. Next they’ll say we need to regulate chatbots like we regulate lawnmowers. Maybe not entirely joking though.
Who exactly gets to engage the public meaningfully? Will regular citizens have a real voice, or is this just another committee with no teeth?
This is the first time I’ve seen a former Attorney General frame AI as an existential threat rather than just an economic disruptor. Very compelling argument.
I agree with the sentiment, but does international law actually work for climate change? I doubt it will stop China and the US from racing ahead.
It is absolutely absurd that my toaster has more safety regulations than a superintelligence. Something really needs to change immediately.