In 1950, before the term artificial intelligence was first exclaimed and defined, Issac Asimov (a successful science fiction author) introduced the world to the necessity of strictures that must be placed on self-computing entities (in this case, robots) in order for them to be useful for humanity and not damaging to it. The three laws of robotics (extended to 4 in a subsequent novel), were as follows:

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The fourth law (or Zeroth as Asimov called it) was that robots may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

I lay out this literary review to remind you that the idea of artificial intelligence’s benefits and dangers have been imagined and thought about for at least 75 years. So the pleas of the past week by the leading AI development companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceXAI) that their development needs to be slowed to examine what checks need to be placed on their unregulated software escapades is like Henry Ford putting a car into drive, sticking a brick on the accelerator and warning everyone that the auto is going to need a driver and a steering wheel (while sending it careening towards a crowd of people). Essentially the leaders have run forward not to form solutions but more to ask for golden handcuffs with the keys so that they aren’t accountable for the untethered mess they’ve made.

The truly unfortunate part of all of this discussion is the virtual lack of a constructive agreement that the topic of AI regulation should be discussed. To review: AI leaders and researchers think AI could kill us all. The data centers which run AI models are water and power hogs, which may limit all other development. The development of AI has been likened to a modern space race (with China), yet with no investment in AI defense mechanisms. And economists warn that AI will substantially alter the job market, creating substantial job displacement.

With that backdrop, one has to wonder why our President and Congress are entirely disengaged on the topic. The President opposes regulatory structures around development – he even opposes a slow-down to ensure greater safety controls. The Speaker of the House opposes the pause on national security grounds (and because the President said so) – remember that when terrorists figure out how to target American troops with AI developed in America. The European Union has figured out how to discuss and legislate on AI development (EU AI Act). The states have been actively debating and passing laws around AI (over 1,500 laws proposed in all 50 states). Our chief competitor, China, has put in place a comprehensive series of strictures around AI development (one would expect nothing less from a totalitarian regime, but they’ve got some common sense guardrails in place that America does not) – perhaps we could copy some of theirs. And in a world without MAGA ‘leadership’, perhaps we could enter into a worldwide treaty system that agrees to safety controls for all AI development and use – obviously not in this go-it-alone, ‘shoot ourselves in the foot and blame the foot’ regime.

With such a transformative technological shift underway, why do our nation’s leaders believe that a handful of billionaires have the right to shape the future of our economy and way of life? The heads of the AI companies, and the handful of chip makers enabling their efforts, have disproportionate influence over the capability, shape and safety of AI. If they fail to think about the downside impacts of AI access to water and utility systems – oh, well. They’re billionaires, we can trust them?!?!?

The historical analogy that comes to mind is the advent of commercial aircraft. Prior to 1926, air traffic was largely uncoordinated and aircraft worthiness was unregulated. Unsurprisingly, aircraft crash rates were high. So a conservative Republican Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, creating licenses for pilots and airworthiness certificates for new and existing aircraft. Standards increased over time and by 1956, when two DC-7s collided over the Grand Canyon, the Congress (led by two Texas Democrats) created the FAA to further regulate the operation and safety of the airline industry. Congress didn’t wait for the Douglases, Boeings, and Hugheses of the world to test their trial and error on the American public before stepping up. And by stepping up, they created a widely accepted industry that likely wouldn’t have been so profitable without the government’s safety regime.

We should not entrust a few private citizens with our economy, simply because they can make so much money if they get it right. If our elected representatives are unwilling to legislate on something so clearly impactful to American lives, then perhaps they are unfit to have legislative roles.

And the national disgrace continues…