How to Handle “The Adolescence of Technology” Like Adults
As the United States and its 50 states debate how to proceed with artificial intelligence (AI) governance, the CEO of a major AI lab has published a thorough essay on the major risks he sees from continued AI advances.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s essay, “The Adolescence of Technology,” stresses a few key principles to safeguard against the worst-case AI outcomes. Application of these principles at the state and federal level may result in a more reasoned, evidence-driven approach to AI governance. Below, I evaluate Amodei’s approach and consider how it might be further strengthened.
Who is Amodei?
Amodei is the CEO of Anthropic. For those less familiar with the ins and outs of the few key players shaping the direction of AI progress in the United States (and the world), Amodei is near the top of the list. He’s been in high-ranking positions at leading AI firms for more than a decade, and his views on AI policy carry significant weight.
Amodei has been especially vocal about the risks posed by AI. Notably, he left OpenAI because he feared that the lab did not take the downsides of AI seriously enough. Consequently, he and his company have often made headline news:
- “Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei Predicts Half of All Entry-Level Office Jobs Will Disappear”
- “Anthropic’s Chief Executive Acknowledges Risks of Huge Spending on A.I.”
- “Amodei on AI: ‘There’s a 25% chance that things go really, really badly’”
Admittedly, Anthropic is not your average AI company. They seem to hold themselves to different standards—and have different goals—than other labs. Take their word for it:
“Anthropic occupies a peculiar position in the AI landscape: we believe that AI might be one of the most world-altering and potentially dangerous technologies in human history, yet we are developing this very technology ourselves. We don’t think this is a contradiction; rather, it’s a calculated bet on our part—if powerful AI is coming regardless, Anthropic believes it’s better to have safety-focused labs at the frontier than to cede that ground to developers less focused on safety.”
The upshot is that Amodei is a technically savvy, thoughtful individual leading a company that is conscious of both the positives and negatives of AI. None is this more apparent than in his most recent essay, which focuses on AI risks, and his previous essay, “Machines of Loving Grace,” which detailed the brighter future AI could bring about.
Principles
Amodei articulates several overarching principles that should guide AI policy:
Evidence-Driven Approach
AI risks ought to be discussed and governed in a “realistic, pragmatic manner,” according to Amodei. This approach—one that is “sober, fact-based, and well-equipped to survive changing tides”—has not always been followed. He notes that AI policy discussions have seemingly swung from an excessive focus on risks in 2023 to an inflated celebration of its potential benefits starting in 2025. The essay emphasizes that “Anthropic cautiously advocated for a judicious and evidence-based approach to these risks” regardless of whether addressing AI risks is politically popular or not.
Application of this approach would safeguard against premature action. Amodei observes that earlier AI policy debates were dominated by “some of the least sensible voices,” who managed to “[rise] to the top, often through sensationalist social media accounts.”
Humility and Acknowledgment of Uncertainty
“Acknowledge uncertainty,” urges Amodei. “There are plenty of ways in which the concerns I’m raising in this piece could be moot. Nothing here is intended to communicate certainty or even likelihood… No one can predict the future with complete confidence—but we have to do the best we can to plan anyway.”
He emphasizes that “the hunt for such evidence must be intellectually honest, such that it could also turn up evidence of a lack of danger.”
Supporting Innovation / Avoiding Harm to Smaller Players
Amodei repeatedly stresses that regulations should reduce hurdles imposed on smaller, nascent AI companies that are not operating on the frontier of AI. He contends that Anthropic has “put a particular focus on trying to minimize collateral damage.”
Surgical, Disciplined Intervention
“Intervene as surgically as possible,” advises Amodei. “Addressing the risks of AI will require a mix of voluntary actions taken by companies (and private third-party actors) and actions taken by governments that bind everyone.”
Avoiding “Doomerism”
Bluntly, Amodei directs policymakers to “[a]void doomerism.” “Doomerism,” as defined by Amodei, refers not just to “the sense of believing doom is inevitable,” but more generally, thinking about AI risks in a quasi-religious way.
Reading Between the Lines
Amodei’s willingness to put his principles on paper is commendable. It’s far easier for CEOs to stay quiet on important policy debates than it is to affirmatively outline views and policy suggestions. My hope is that Amodei will continue to share similar essays.
Conclusion
If AI policy stakeholders are to handle the adolescence of AI like adults, they must avoid clumping all AI tools together, indiscriminately treating all AI as the source of looming catastrophes. Amodei’s call for an evidence-driven approach is a necessary rebuke to the vibes-based policymaking that characterizes many legislative hearings.
Ultimately, the litmus test for any AI policy should be whether it strengthens or subverts our core democratic values. A regulatory environment that favors incumbents through high compliance costs can exacerbate some of the risks at the top of Amodei’s list, such as concentrations of power and economic inequality.
