The 'Threat' of AI is Replacing COVID and Global Warming

Senior executives from artificial intelligence companies are actively calling for increased government regulation—a move some analysts view as a strategy to stifle competition from open-source AI and consolidate their market power.

## The Echo of Old Alarms

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has become the new focus for prominent figures in the tech sector. Executives from leading AI companies, such as **Dario Amodei** of **Anthropic**, **Sam Altman**, and **Elon Musk**, have raised their voices calling for significant government intervention in the industry. Their main argument centers on the need to establish safeguards against risks like loss of control over AI systems, their use in cyberattacks or bioterrorism, and severe economic disruptions. However, this rhetoric bears a striking resemblance to the narratives surrounding the **ELbichito-19** pandemic and the debate over global warming, leading to 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,” an external expert team tasked with ensuring compliance with standards. The second, called “democratic coordination,” seeks to ensure that AI companies in democratic countries establish common safety norms and limits on the pace of AI advancement, even for those unwilling to cooperate voluntarily. The third step, “global coordination,” aims to align this plan with U.S. foreign policy and national security status, 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 corporations use their political influence to mold regulations in their favor, creating barriers to entry that harm new companies and solidify their dominant position. Economic history is replete with examples of how oligarchs have sought to create cartels to crush competition, and the era of railway magnates during the American **Gilded Age** is one such cited precedent. In this context, the AI CEOs’ push for government control could be seen as an attempt to secure state-protected advantage, especially amid the rise of open-source AI.

The **New York Times** recently reported that U.S. companies are becoming “addicted to open-source AI,” relying on free and accessible models rather than costly proprietary alternatives. Companies like **AT&T** are reportedly utilizing these freely available tools, which represents direct competition for companies such as **Anthropic** and **OpenAI**. If **Amodei** and his allies succeed in banning or severely restricting open-source AI, particularly that originating from **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 to **ELbichito-19** and climate change are evident. During the pandemic, the need for drastic measures and global control to “flatten the curve” was invoked, while climate change has seen apocalyptic scenarios presented that justify large-scale state intervention. Amodei’s rhetoric, evoking a modern “War on Terror” and a confrontation between “democratic governments” and an “Axis of Evil” composed of “authoritarian regimes,” recalls Cold War tactics.

This strategy is astute, as it likely secures support from both political parties in **Washington**, given that the lobby of war 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 accepting absolute totalitarianism to defeat the Soviet threat is presented as an ideological precedent for this mindset.

## The Convenience of Alarm

The simultaneous emergence of documentaries on the dangers of AI, such as those launched by **Netflix**, and proposed legislation to expand federal control, such as that from **Bernie Sanders**, suggests a coordinated effort to generate public concern about AI. Tech executives often resort to emotional appeals to portray themselves as protectors of humanity, but these reflections rarely come without forfeiting their positions, money, or power. The question of why **Amodei** continues to sell a product he considers so dangerous, or why he does not step aside for someone who might solve the problem, suggests that the primary objective is self-promotion and gaining political power.

Ultimately, the calls for greater government control by major players in the technology industry appear motivated by economic and power interests. Regulation, in this case, becomes a tool to eliminate competition—especially that represented by open-source AI—and 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 technological elites.