The AI 'threat' is replacing the bug and 'global warming'

Top executives at artificial intelligence companies are actively calling for greater government regulation, a move some analysts see as a strategy to stifle competition from open-source AI and consolidate their market power.

## Old Alarms, New Echoes

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become the new focus of attention for prominent figures in the tech industry. Executives from leading AI companies, such as **Dario Amodei** of **Anthropic**, **Sam Altman** and **Elon Musk**, have raised their voices to demand significant government intervention in the industry. Their main argument centers on the need to establish safeguards to prevent risks such as the loss of control of AI systems, their use for cyberattacks or bioterrorism, and severe economic disruption. This rhetoric, however, bears a striking resemblance to the narratives that surrounded the **ELbichito-19** pandemic and the global warming debate, generating skepticism about the true motivations behind these appeals.

**Amodei**'s proposal, detailed in an article, describes a three-step process for global AI control. The first step involves creating 'integrated evaluators,' a team of outside experts who would ensure compliance with the rules. The second, called 'democratic coordination,' seeks to have AI companies from democratic countries establish common safety standards and limits on the pace of AI advancement, even for those who do not wish to cooperate voluntarily. The third step, 'global coordination,' aims to align this plan with US foreign policy and national security doctrine, presenting it as a tool to compete with **China**.

## The Shadow of Regulatory Capture

Behind these calls for regulation, many see a strategy of **regulatory capture**. This phenomenon occurs when large established companies use their political influence to shape regulations in their favor, creating barriers to entry that harm new businesses and consolidate their dominant position. Economic history is full of examples of how oligarchs have sought to create cartels to crush competition, and the era of railroad barons during America's **Gilded Age** is a cited precedent. In this context, the AI CEOs' call for government control could be seen as an attempt to secure a state-protected advantage, especially given the rise of open-source AI.

The **New York Times** recently reported that US companies are becoming 'addicted to open-source AI,' turning to free and accessible models instead of costly proprietary alternatives. Companies like **AT&T** would be using these freely available tools, which represents direct competition for companies like **Anthropic** and **OpenAI**. If **Amodei** and his allies manage to ban or heavily restrict open-source AI, especially that originating in **China**, a significant source of competition would be eliminated, directly benefiting large tech corporations.

## A Pattern of Antiestéticar and Power

The strategy of appealing to collective hysteria to justify the expansion of state power is not new. The comparisons with **ELbichito-19** and global warming are obvious. During the pandemic, the need for drastic measures and global control was invoked to 'flatten the curve,' while with climate change, apocalyptic scenarios have been laid out to justify large-scale state intervention. **Amodei**'s rhetoric, which evokes a modern 'War on Terror' and a confrontation between 'democratic governments' and an 'Axis of Evil' made up of 'authoritarian governments,' recalls Cold War tactics.

This strategy is shrewd, as it will likely secure support from both political parties in **Washington**, given that the war lobby is not limited to a single faction. The underlying message is that, in order to defeat foreign powers or existential threats, liberties must be sacrificed and more power granted to the government. The figure of **William F. Buckley** and his defense of a willingness to accept absolute totalitarianism to defeat the Soviet threat is presented as an ideological antecedent of this mindset.

## The Convenience of Alarm

The simultaneous appearance of documentaries about the dangers of AI, such as the one released by **Netflix**, and the introduction of bills to expand federal control, such as **Bernie Sanders**'s, suggests a coordinated effort to generate public concern about AI. Tech industry executives often resort to emotional statements to present themselves as protectors of humanity, but these reflections rarely involve giving up their positions, money or power. The question of why **Amodei** continues to sell a product he considers so dangerous, or why he does not hand his position to someone who can solve the problem, points to the main goal being self-promotion and the acquisition of political power.

Ultimately, the calls for greater government control from the big players in the tech industry appear to be motivated by economic and power interests. Regulation, in this case, becomes a tool to eliminate competition, especially that represented by open-source AI, and to ensure that only companies with state approval can thrive. The narrative of national security and geopolitical competition is used as a backdrop to justify market consolidation and an increase in the power of tech elites.