Artificial Intelligence: promises and problems -- Controlling AI before it’s too late

There’s consensus about Artificial Intelligence and the need for it to be regulated – agreement exists from conservative Steve Bannon and liberal Bernie Sanders to a leading AI developer and the Vatican, plus almost all Americans. So one would think rules would happen. But Big Tech and the billionaires it created and the politicians they fund generally oppose regulations.

Pope Leo sees the threat, and in his first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas” (Magnificent Humanity), he urges “safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence” and warns about the imbalance of power behind it.

In Illinois and dozens of states, lawmakers are trying to address AI.

“The Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act requires big AI companies to implement thorough transparency and harm reduction frameworks, strengthening safety regulations, requirements, and civil protections,” Illinois state Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth (D-92^nd) told the Community Word.

Gordon-Booth was a co-sponsor of the measure, which would implement an AI framework for companies such as Google and OpenAI to address risk assessment, governance, cybersecurity, and independent evaluations. It passed the state Senate May 21, 52-5, with support from area Sens. Li Arellano (R-37^th) and David Koehler (D-46^th). The state House of Representatives on May 27 approved it unanimously, backed by area House members Gordon-Booth and fellow Democrat Sharon Chung (91^st) plus Republicans Norine Hammond (94^th – also a co-sponsor), Dennis Tipsword (105^th) and Travis Weaver (93^rd). Ryan Spain (R-73^rd) did not vote. Gov. Pritzker said he’d sign the bill, which would take effect Jan. 1

However, President Trump, the U.S. House and MAGA-cozy elected officials seem to resist meaningful controls on the new technology.

Why? Maybe money and power.

IBM defines AI: “Artificial intelligence is technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human learning, comprehension, problem-solving, decision-making, creativity and autonomy.”

It includes “traditional” AI (performing defined functions such as traffic routing via Google Maps, etc., based on set rules); “generative” AI (creating new content—text, images, code—derived from existing material, responding to user prompts), and developing “superintelligence” AI (which could have self-awareness, the capacity to self-improve and outperform humans on cognitive tasks).

For Pope Leo’s 42,000-word encyclical, he was helped by theologians, scholars, consultations with Amazon and Meta, and even AI developer Chris Olah, the 33-year-old cofounder of AI giant Anthropic (which recently proposed that top AI companies pause development of advanced AI systems, warning, “It would be good for the world to have the option to slow development if advanced systems increase the risks of humans losing control over AI.”)

Leo warns about AI’s potential to worsen inequality, erode workers’ dignity and automate war.

“So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, and do not know … what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean,” Leo writes. “Nor do they have a moral conscience … they do not judge good and evil, … or bear responsibility for consequences.

“Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity,” he continues. Nevertheless, “artificial intelligence now demands to be ‘disarmed,’ freed from logics that turn it into an instrument of domination, exclusion or death,” Leo says, adding, “To disarm does not mean rejecting technology but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion.” 

Control should not be confined to the few when so many could be affected, he says.

“AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data,” he writes. “This raises serious concerns, since small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage.

“We cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own,” Leo continues. “A culture of power is taking hold, in which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda. The common good of humanity is relegated to the background.

“Entrusting an algorithm … with the power to select who is worthy or not is to hand over the task of redefining the boundaries of human possibilities,” he writes. “Faced with this concentration of power in the digital world, the criteria for judgment and discernment in this new situation are the noble principles of … the inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, … solidarity and social justice.” 

Margaret O’Mara, a University of Washington historian of technology told the Washington Post, “We’re in this weird uncharted territory in which politics, business and now religion are so bound up in one another. That’s not something for which we have historic precedent.”

The public wants AI controls. Gallup Polls shows that 97% of Americans believe AI safety and security should be governed by regulations, and civic groups ranging from Americans for Responsible Innovation, the ACLU and the AFL-CIO are weighing in. Labor federation President Liz Shuler said, “Pope Leo’s first encyclical is a testament to the urgency of this issue. Workers are being surveilled, fired, hurt and have even died in workplaces that recklessly use AI without guardrails and worker input. If we don’t harness it properly, AI is the single biggest threat to working people of our lifetime.”

Political figures demanding controls include Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Sanders (I-Vt.).

Sanders says he will introduce the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act to give the public an ownership stake in the largest AI companies in our country through a one-time 50% tax — paid not on profits of OpenAI, xAI and other companies, but paid with stock.

“It would give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology,” he said, and “would guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us.

“Given the fact it is the people … whose work is the foundation of AI, they should have some say in the future of AI,” he told CQ-Roll Call.

(Trump has engineered such deals, with government owning percentages of Intel, U.S. Steel and other companies.)

“Four AI companies are spending $670 billion this year building data centers,” Sanders added. “That’s 10 times greater, in GDP, than what we spent on the moon landing. Who will own and control that future? Who will benefit from it, and who will be hurt by it?”

Elsewhere, Bannon and fellow conservative Glenn Beck are two of more than 137,000 people who’ve signed an open letter from the Future of Life Institute calling for a “prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in.” Signers include Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, five Nobel laureates, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, rapper will.i.am, actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, business magnate Richard Branson, Prince Harry and Meghan (the Duke and Duchess of Windsor), and Mike Mullen (ex-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama).

In Peoria, Gordon-Booth added, “AI can be a tremendous tool, but like all emerging technologies, we need to develop regulations and guardrails to protect people in our community and across the state from exploitative practices.”

Even with roadblocks from Trump’s MAGA base and the billionaires who contribute to their campaigns, the advocacy by Anthropic’s Olah and the pontiff could change that.

“The Catholic Church is more enduring than MAGA,” O’Mara said.