Regulation Advocates Urge Focus on Concrete AI Risks, Not Doomsday Scenarios
Sarah Myers West of the AI Now Institute argues that AI regulation should start by identifying specific mechanisms of harm rather than broad existential threats. She contends that breaking down actual risks is essential for designing effective mitigation measures. The debate, she says, risks being dominated by apocalyptic narratives that crowd out more practical policy approaches.
Sarah Myers West, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, a policy research organization, emphasizes that regulators should first identify the specific pathways through which AI could cause harm before addressing broader existential concerns. She argues that understanding these mechanisms is a prerequisite for developing effective mitigation strategies.
West also cautions that legislative efforts framed around catastrophic worst-case outcomes may overshadow more pragmatic regulatory approaches. By prioritizing apocalyptic narratives, she suggests, policymakers risk neglecting the concrete, actionable issues that demand immediate attention in AI governance.
This debate could shape how governments prioritize AI legislation in coming years. If apocalyptic framing dominates public discourse, regulators may focus resources on speculative worst-case scenarios while underfunding protections for immediate harms like algorithmic bias or privacy violations. Conversely, a concrete-risks approach could produce more enforceable, targeted rules. The outcome may influence public trust in both AI systems and the regulatory bodies overseeing them, affecting how quickly and effectively society adapts to rapid technological change.