TZUTC: -0500   
   MSGID: 1701.consprcy@1:2320/105 2d7b1fca   
   PID: Synchronet 3.21a-Linux master/123f2d28a Jul 12 2025 GCC 12.2.0   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.28-Linux master/123f2d28a Jul 12 2025 GCC 12.2.0   
   BBSID: CAPCITY2   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
   FORMAT: flowed   
   An AI executive's dire warnings about the future are chilling  but his   
   solution is worse than the problem   
      
   Date:   
   Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000   
      
   Description:   
   AI has enormous disruptive potential, but trusting tech companies to guide   
   society through the danger is foolish.   
      
   FULL STORY   
      
   AI is making for a fraught future, with problems that DeepSeek senior   
   researcher Chen Deli believes tech companies are best suited to solve.   
   DeepSeek is one of China's hottest AI upstarts, albeit one facing some   
   political and technical headwinds, but for a startup that jolted global   
   markets with a low-cost AI model that spurred a wave of open-sourcing from   
   competitors like OpenAI, DeepSeek has been unusually quiet. So when one of    
   its leaders warns that AI could eliminate most jobs over the next two decades   
   and cause major disruptions that society is not ready for, people pay   
   attention.    
      
   The honeymoon phase we are in now will end, and people will face a wave of   
   layoffs vast enough to reshape social contracts and institutions. He made it   
   sound like a less immediately deadly Black Plague for its rewriting of   
   people's lives. It's certainly not the most outlandish claim. But Chens   
   proposal for corporate saviors sounds as nonsensical as any AI hallucination.    
      
   "Tech companies should play the role of guardians of humanity, at the very   
   least, protecting human safety, then helping to reshape societal order," he   
   said, setting off every warning bell imparted by the entire history of   
   dystopian science fiction, not to mention actual tales of history.    
      
   The word reshape alone ought to chill the bones. Hes effectively saying the   
   corporations building the tools that might upend society should also be in   
   charge of designing what comes next. Its as if Oppenheimer had asked the   
   Manhattan Project to write the postwar constitution, but only after nuclear   
   reactors had an IPO on Wall Street. The suggestion isnt just nave. Its deeply   
   dangerous.    
      
   The changes wrought by AI go well beyond who gets replaced by a chatbot    
   that's sometimes adequate at the job. Deli's not wrong to point out that AI   
   systems will increasingly outperform humans. But what kind of world are we   
   building when those jobs are gone?    
      
   AI already sets the tone for what we see online, what we buy, and how we   
   behave, with the tech companies monetizing every bit of us and our data they   
   can. The idea of these same companies, insulated from meaningful oversight    
   and beholden only to profit margins, serving as the selfless custodians of a   
   chaotic society, is laughable. If anything, theyve made it abundantly clear   
   that theyll prioritize growth, revenue, and everything else above humans and   
   the broader project of civilization, even when the collateral damage is   
   obvious.    
      
   Every week, there seems to be another embarrassing or outrageous story born   
   from the flaws and foibles of AI, and plenty more about how people are   
   misunderstanding and misusing the technology. Yet the response is almost    
   never more than a shrug and a promise to fix it eventually, right after they   
   complete their next crucial investor call.   
      
   Human intelligence regulating the artificial kind   
      
   To be fair, public regulators havent exactly dazzled us with their speed or   
   savvy. The EUs AI Act is a good step, but not enough on its own, and the U.S.   
   regulatory frameworks are fragmented and mostly reactive. The average   
   congressional hearing on AI is a grim parade of buzzwords and tech executives   
   politely nodding at lawmakers who dont understand what theyre talking about.   
   China, where DeepSeek is based, has been more aggressive in some areas, but   
   its hard to argue that centralized authoritarian control is the better model   
   for tech governance. Surveillance concerns and speech limitations dont get   
   easier to swallow just because they have a human signing the rules.    
      
   The current state of regulation is uneven, inconsistent, and often too slow.   
   But that doesn't mean the answer is to hand over the reins to the developers   
   like they are benevolently neutral. They are not your friends or your   
   representatives. They are certainly not suited to be physical and   
   civilizational caretakers of humanity. They are commercial actors with   
   products to sell and quarterly metrics to hit. When push comes to shove,   
   theyll sand down any ethical qualms until they fit neatly inside a slide    
   deck.    
      
   You cant mitigate harm when the very act of mitigation threatens your    
   business model. If an AI-powered hiring system turns out to be    
   discriminatory, fixing it costs money. If an automated content generator   
   floods the web with low-quality sludge, turning it off affects revenue.    
   Theres no incentive to do the right thing unless someone forces their hand,   
   and by that point, its usually too late.    
      
   The tech industry has shown repeatedly that its not equipped to self-regulate   
   in a way that prioritizes the public good over private gain. In fact, the    
   mere idea that the architects of disruption should also be in charge of   
   constructing what replaces the old order should terrify anyone whos ever been   
   on the wrong side of a platforms algorithm.   
      
   It's not anti-progress, it's pro-humanity   
      
   None of this is to say that AI doesnt have incredible potential for good or   
   that demanding safeguards means you're anti-technology. Despite confusion    
   over the term, it's worth remembering that the Luddites weren't against   
   technology either; they were anti-exploitation. Their protests weren't about   
   looms, but about factory owners who used those looms to undercut skilled    
   labor and impose miserable working conditions.    
      
   Chen Deli is right to ring the alarm, but wrong about who should hold the   
   bell. Whistleblowers dont tend to emerge from boardrooms. We dont yet have a   
   coherent framework for what responsible AI governance looks like. We have   
   pieces, but no connective tissue to make those ideas stick, and we lack the   
   political courage to impose them on the people with the most power.    
      
   Still, Im not entirely pessimistic. The frameworks we need could exist. They   
   could be built by coalitions of governments, civil society, independent   
   researchers, and yes, even some principled voices from within the tech world.   
   But theyll only come into being if enough people demand them.    
      
   If the next decade really does bring the kind of transformation Deli    
   predicts, well need more than corporate promises. Well need rules with teeth   
   to preserve the safety and dignity of humanity without trying to make it a   
   product for sale.    
      
   ======================================================================   
   Link to news story:   
   https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/an-ai-executives-dire-warnin   
   gs-about-the-future-are-chilling-but-his-solution-is-worse-than-the-problem   
      
   $$   
   --- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux   
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)   
   SEEN-BY: 105/81 106/201 128/187 129/14 305 153/7715 154/110 218/700   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/110 206 300 307 317 400 426 428 470 664   
   SEEN-BY: 229/700 705 266/512 291/111 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45   
   SEEN-BY: 460/58 633/280 712/848 902/26 2320/0 105 304 3634/12 5075/35   
   PATH: 2320/105 229/426