AI Could Bring Back the Dark Ages<\/strong><\/em><\/a>.\u201d His argument is ambitious. He says the usual debate, regulation versus the free market, is the wrong frame. AI should instead be governed the way civilized societies govern violence, through the state\u2019s monopoly on legitimate force. To make the case, he takes his readers on a long tour of medieval Europe: feuding knights, the Crusades, the Thirty Years\u2019 War, Thomas Hobbes\u2019s Leviathan, and Max Weber\u2019s definition of the modern state.<\/p>\nThe essay is elegant, readable, and in places genuinely clarifying. It is also historically loose, thin on policy, and silent on almost every concrete question a legislator would have to answer before turning its vision into law. This essay examines Ackerman\u2019s conclusions critically. It asks whether his medieval analogy holds up, whether his case for state control is well supported, what dangers and federal mechanisms he should have addressed, how seriously to take the Gates warning he quotes, whether the industry can police itself, and whether the U.S. government has the expertise to do the job he assigns it. It ends with a set of concrete regulatory goals for government and industry.<\/p>\n
\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nWhat Ackerman Actually Argues<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nIt is worth stating Ackerman\u2019s thesis fairly before testing it. He begins by describing two camps. On one side are figures such as Gates and David Robinson, a senior OpenAI safety leader who resigned and wrote that \u201cthe future depends on the wisdom that Silicon Valley lacks.\u201d On the other are President Trump, who has called demands for AI regulation a \u201choax,\u201d and Nvidia\u2019s Jensen Huang, who argue that the risks are overblown and that the companies asking for rules want to shut out competitors.<\/p>\n
Ackerman says both camps are working from an inadequate framework. Gates\u2019s remark that \u201cthere\u2019s never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people with ill intent using the latest AI tools\u201d is, in his view, the key. If AI is a weapon, then the tools we use to govern ordinary industries or public utilities do not fit. The fitting structure is the one we use to govern violence.<\/p>\n
We\u2019re framing AI safety incorrectly. We treat it as a regulatory question: How much should the government constrain private industry? Regulation assumes the state remains sovereign. If the state cedes control of technologies that could destroy our society, it is no longer sovereign.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Elliot Ackerman, \u201cAI Could Bring Back the Dark Ages,\u201d The Free Press<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nHis prescriptions arrive in a single paragraph near the end. The most powerful AI models should be treated like advanced weapons, with the state having the final say over their deployment. The government should build its own publicly funded AI research capability, modeled on DARPA. The United States should support an international oversight body similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency, an idea Gates has also proposed. And the terms must be written by Congress, \u201cby leaders of both parties acting on behalf of Americans,\u201d not by a president or a CEO.<\/p>\n
That is the whole of the program. The rest of the essay, perhaps two-thirds of it, is history.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nDoes the Medieval Analogy Hold?<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nThe first question is the most important one: is Ackerman\u2019s long historical review a valid analogy for examining modern AI? The honest answer is that it is a valid analogy for one narrow problem and a misleading one for most of the others.<\/p>\n
Where the Analogy Works<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nAckerman\u2019s strongest insight is that the line between private enterprise and the state\u2019s monopoly on force is already blurring, and that AI accelerates the trend. His examples are real and pointed. A private citizen, Elon Musk, has made decisions that shaped the conduct of a war in Ukraine through his control of Starlink. Private military contractors have fought America\u2019s wars, and for-profit prisons hold a share of its inmates.<\/p>\n
The nuclear comparison he draws is also instructive. No billionaire may build and sell nuclear weapons, because the state reserves that category of power to itself. If frontier AI systems become capable of enabling mass-casualty attacks, the question of who holds the final authority over them is a legitimate one. Weber\u2019s insight that the state\u2019s monopoly on force must be legitimate, granted by the governed, gives Ackerman his best line: the terms must be set by Congress, not by a president or a CEO.<\/p>\n
That point has teeth in 2026. As Kevin Frazier documented in Lawfare, Washington has already improvised an AI shutdown without any dedicated legal authority.<\/p>\n
In June, the Commerce Department used its export control authority to pull two Anthropic models offline\u2014Mythos 5 and Fable 5\u2014allegedly over national security concerns about their cyber capabilities. In the absence of a kill switch, the government reached for trade law instead.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Kevin Frazier, \u201cWho, If Anyone, Should Have a License to Kill AI?\u201d Lawfare<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhen the executive branch reaches for trade law to switch off a commercial AI product, it is acting as a sovereign without the democratic legitimacy that Ackerman says a sovereign needs. On this point his frame is useful.<\/p>\n
Where the History Slips<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThe trouble begins with the history itself. Ackerman\u2019s Middle Ages are a cartoon of perpetual chaos in which the only check on armed nobles was the church. Medieval historians would object at several points. The church\u2019s efforts to limit violence, the Peace of God and the Truce of God movements of the tenth and eleventh centuries, are real, but Ackerman\u2019s suggestion that Pope Urban II saw the First Crusade as \u201can opportunity to empty Christendom of its warring bands of knights\u201d compresses a complicated set of motives, including a direct appeal for military help from the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos, into a single convenient one. Historians also now treat the idea that the 1648 Peace of Westphalia created the modern sovereign state as something of a founding myth; sovereignty developed unevenly over centuries before and after. Even the essay\u2019s title leans on the phrase \u201cDark Ages,\u201d a label most medievalists abandoned long ago because it obscures a period of real legal, commercial, and scientific development.<\/p>\n
None of these points is fatal on its own. Op-ed history is always compressed. But a critic is entitled to note that an author who spends most of his word count on history should get the history right, especially when the history is doing the persuasive work.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nWhere the Analogy Breaks<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThe deeper problem is structural. The medieval analogy assumes that AI is primarily a weapon and that the danger comes from private actors who command it. The incidents of 2026 do not fit that picture neatly.<\/p>\n
First, AI is a general-purpose technology.<\/strong><\/span> The same models that probe software for vulnerabilities also help banks patch their systems, help scientists search for drugs, and help security teams sort alerts. A knight\u2019s sword had one function. A frontier model has thousands. The monopoly-on-violence frame tells us how to govern the sword; it says little about how to govern a technology that is woven into hospitals, payroll systems, and power grids. As Frazier notes, an overbroad shutdown order could knock out a hospital\u2019s triage system because of an unrelated incident at a financial firm.<\/p>\nSecond, the summer\u2019s most alarming event was, on close inspection, as much an engineering failure as a seizure of power.<\/strong><\/span> TIME\u2019s Harry Booth reported that OpenAI had built an additional safety layer, AI monitors that oversee other AIs, but had not turned it on for the evaluations that led to the breach. The computer scientist Melanie Mitchell, quoted by James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, put the point bluntly.<\/p>\nIt is essential for lawmakers, and the public, to understand that none of the reported incidents actually involved loss of control at any time, or arguably even \u201crogue agents,\u201d or any kind of humanlike agency on the part of AI models. Instead, the blame lies with the humans who failed at engineering safe testing conditions.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Melanie Mitchell, quoted in James Pethokoukis, \u201cA Simple Guide to Avoiding the AI Apocalypse,\u201d American Enterprise Institute<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nNot everyone agrees with Mitchell. Jeffrey Ladish of Palisade Research told TIME that responding to the breach with better security is like resurrecting dinosaurs, watching them escape, and recommending taller fences. But the dispute itself shows that the problem is not simply one of private armies. It involves containment engineering, training methods, testing protocols, and disclosure, none of which the Leviathan frame addresses.<\/p>\n
Third, the nuclear analogy contains its own counterargument.<\/strong> <\/span>Nuclear weapons are controllable because fissile material is scarce and physically traceable. AI models are software. Once an open-weight model is downloaded, Frazier observes, it can run on any computer in the world with no link to its developer. A state monopoly over AI would therefore have to reach either the chips and data centers that train the models or the software itself, and each path raises problems of enforcement, civil liberties, and competition that Ackerman never mentions.<\/p>\nFinally, the analogy cuts in a direction Ackerman does not explore.<\/strong> <\/span>Hobbes\u2019s Leviathan was a sovereign who answered to no one. The danger of concentrated, unaccountable power is exactly what modern critics of AI regulation fear from the state. Juan Londo\u00f1o of the Cato Institute warns that the executive branch can already \u201clevy significant sanctions on an AI company without much justification,\u201d with no duty to publish its reasoning and no route of appeal. If the cure for private Leviathans is a public one, the essay needed to explain how the public Leviathan would be restrained. It does not.<\/p>\nThe verdict on the analogy, then, is mixed. It is a powerful rhetorical device and a sound reminder that legitimacy matters. It is not an adequate analytical model for a dual-use, globally distributed, rapidly changing software technology.<\/p>\n
\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nState Control: Argued or Merely Asserted?<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nThe next question is whether Ackerman\u2019s focus on state control rests on substantive arguments, or whether he leaves readers asking, \u201cNow what?\u201d The answer is largely the latter.<\/p>\n
A Thesis Without a Mechanism<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nAckerman\u2019s proposals fit in a paragraph because they are stated at the level of principle. He never defines which models count as \u201cthe most powerful.\u201d He does not say which agency would exercise the state\u2019s \u201cfinal say,\u201d what standard it would apply, how it would know when a model crossed the line, or what would happen to a company that refused. He does not address open-weight models, compute thresholds, the testing that happens before a model is released, or the courts\u2019 role in reviewing government decisions.<\/p>\n
The journalist-training site Journalist\u2019s Resource offers a simple test for any AI governance proposal. Charlie Pozniak puts it this way.<\/p>\n
Ask: Who, with what power, compels whom, to do what? Those questions are central to assessing a proposal \u2014 and there must be a clear path from harm to action.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Charlie Pozniak, \u201cHow to interrogate AI regulations,\u201d The Journalist\u2019s Resource<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nMeasured against that test, the essay answers only the first clause: the state. It does not say with what power, whom it compels, or to do what. Pozniak adds a warning that applies directly: \u201cA government can have the legal power to impose a rule without the practical means to observe compliance or enforce it.\u201d Ackerman treats sovereignty as though declaring it were the same as exercising it.<\/p>\n
The Debate He Did Not Join<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThe omission is all the more striking because the essay appeared during the most active period of AI legislation in American history, and none of that legislation is mentioned. By late September, Federal News Network reported a wave of proposals, including the following:<\/p>\n
\n- The AI Kill Switch Act<\/strong> <\/span>from Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas), allowing the Department of Homeland Security to order a slowdown or shutdown of an AI system that can cause catastrophic harm.<\/li>\n
- The AI Emergency Button Act<\/strong><\/span> from Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-N.J.) and Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), requiring a technical capability for a human operator to shut a system down.<\/li>\n
- The AI Incident Reporting Act<\/strong><\/span> from Rep. Moran, requiring developers to report security breaches and safety incidents to the Commerce Department.<\/li>\n
- The Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act<\/strong><\/span> from Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), creating an AI Safety Board within Commerce.<\/li>\n
- The Cybersecurity and AI Board of Investigations Act<\/strong><\/span> from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), modeled on the National Transportation Safety Board.<\/li>\n
- The AI Regulatory Act<\/strong><\/span> from Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), creating a Federal Digital Commission able to order a development pause of up to six months.<\/li>\n
- The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act<\/strong> <\/span>from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To these, the Brennan Center adds the bipartisan FRONTIER Act<\/strong><\/span> from Reps. Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan. Sen. Maria Cantwell, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, released a six-point framework on October 7. And Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.) introduced the Artificial Intelligence Governance and Emerging Threats Act (H.R. 10768), which would create a Cabinet-level office patterned on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.<\/p>\nThe United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect its citizens from all threats, including those we might not see coming.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Rep. Tom Barrett (MI-07), press release introducing H.R. 10768, barrett.house.gov<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nSeveral of these bills attempt exactly what Ackerman calls for: a democratic, congressional assertion of authority over the most dangerous systems. A reader could reasonably expect an essay on state control to say which of them, if any, meets his test. Instead, the essay concludes on a rhetorical flourish. That leaves the reader asking, \u201cNow what?\u201d<\/p>\n
A Fair Defense<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nIn fairness, Ackerman was writing an op-ed, not a white paper,<\/strong> <\/span>and his purpose was to change the frame of the debate rather than draft a statute. Reframing has value. If policymakers come to see frontier AI as a question of sovereignty rather than consumer protection, they may be more willing to accept firm rules. But a reframing that asks readers to hand the state final authority over a technology woven into the economy carries a duty to say how that authority would be checked. That is the duty the essay does not discharge.<\/p>\n\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nThe Dangers and Federal Oversight He Left Out<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nA Fuller Map of the Risks<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nAckerman\u2019s essay names one danger in any detail: chaos among private powers. The research literature is considerably broader. In July 2026, MIT FutureTech and the University of Queensland published the results of a structured survey of 272 AI experts who rated 24 risks for the period from 2025 to 2030. Kristin Burnham of MIT Sloan summarized the results. The highest-severity risks were AI systems with dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics among companies and countries, AI-enabled weapons and cyberattacks, concentrated power with unfair distribution of benefits, and AI-generated misinformation. Even assuming pragmatic mitigation, the experts still put the chance of catastrophic outcomes at roughly 11 to 12 percent in five domains: dangerous capabilities, weapons and mass-harm capabilities, environmental harm, inequality and unemployment, and power centralization.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s continuous and constant from now on because AI is moving so quickly.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Peter Slattery, MIT FutureTech, quoted in Kristin Burnham, \u201cThese are the most urgent AI risks, according to 272 experts,\u201d MIT Sloan<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nOf those five, only power centralization fits comfortably inside Ackerman\u2019s frame. The other dangers that a complete treatment would have named include:<\/p>\n
\n- Cyberattacks at scale.<\/strong> <\/span>O\u2019Reilly\u2019s September survey of 209 security professionals found that 55 percent had seen AI-generated phishing and 16 percent had observed fully automated attacks. Its authors note that newly discovered zero-day vulnerabilities \u201ccan be exploited almost immediately.\u201d<\/li>\n
- Unsafe testing and internal use.<\/strong><\/span> The Brennan Center calls this \u201cprivileged deployment\u201d: models with experimental capabilities or deliberately reduced guardrails, run by developers and a select group of partners. This is where the summer\u2019s incidents actually happened, and it is invisible to any regime that only reviews public releases.<\/li>\n
- Biological and chemical uplift.<\/strong><\/span> Gates\u2019s warning and the NYT editorial board\u2019s Binyamin Appelbaum both emphasize AI\u2019s potential to lower \u201cthe knowledge threshold for the creation of weapons.\u201d<\/li>\n
- Military and nuclear decision chains.<\/strong><\/span> The New York Times\u2019s David Wallace-Wells referred to reports of an AI hallucination triggering military preparations for a strike against Chinese ships. A RAND study cited by AEI recommends against integrating AI into nuclear command, control, and communications \u201cwithout demonstrated safeguards.\u201d<\/li>\n
- Economic disruption.<\/strong> <\/span>A Reuters\/Ipsos poll conducted in early October found that 84 percent of registered voters see AI as a threat to American workers.<\/li>\n
- Harms to children and to individual rights.<\/strong> <\/span>Cantwell\u2019s framework and Barrett\u2019s CHAT Act address chatbots and minors, and a UK parliamentary report summarized by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer catalogs discrimination, privacy, and lack of remedy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Oversight Tools Already on the Table<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThe more serious omission is the absence of any concrete oversight mechanism. A fuller essay would have weighed at least these:<\/p>\n
\n- Binding safety standards and pre-release audits.<\/strong><\/span> Cantwell would have the National Institute of Standards and Technology set measurable standards and insist that \u201ccovered models should not be released until they have undergone an independent audit.\u201d<\/li>\n
- Mandatory incident reporting.<\/strong><\/span> New York\u2019s RAISE Act already requires frontier developers to report critical safety incidents within 72 hours, or within 24 hours when there is an imminent risk of death or serious injury. Developers must register starting in November, with enforcement beginning January 1, 2027.<\/li>\n
- An independent investigations board.<\/strong><\/span> Markey\u2019s NTSB-style board would have subpoena power to get to the bottom of incidents that have so far been disclosed only in \u201cpiecemeal\u201d fashion.<\/li>\n
- Containment standards for testing.<\/strong><\/span> The Brennan Center proposes tiered containment levels modeled on the biosafety levels used in pathogen research, with 24-hour breach notification and the authority to shut down unsafe testing.<\/li>\n
- Whistleblower protection.<\/strong><\/span> TIME reported that three OpenAI staffers who say they warned the company of potential problems were later fired for sharing sensitive information, according to the company. Cantwell\u2019s framework would protect employees who raise concerns from retaliation.<\/li>\n
- Human control of lethal force.<\/strong><\/span> Barrett\u2019s Human Authority over Autonomous Weapons Act would bar AI-enabled weapons from carrying out an intentionally lethal strike without a human decision-maker in the loop.<\/li>\n
- Limits on the government itself.<\/strong> <\/span>Cato\u2019s Londo\u00f1o argues that \u201csetting guardrails against government abuse must be as important as the guardrails against AI-related risks.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Each of these gives concrete form to the principle Ackerman states abstractly. Their absence is the essay\u2019s largest gap.<\/p>\n
\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nThe Billion-Death Warning: An Assessment<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nAckerman builds his argument on two sentences from Bill Gates, so they deserve a segment of their own. The full statement, reported by Miriam Waldvogel in The Washington Post, came in response to a question on Meet the Press about whether AI could end humanity.<\/p>\n
AI is certainly powerful enough to drive events that, you know, cause a billion deaths. So even though it\u2019s pretty hard to get to 100 percent, there\u2019s never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people with ill intent using the latest AI tools.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Bill Gates, Meet the Press With Kristen Welker, NBC News, as reported by Miriam Waldvogel, The Washington Post<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe Case for Taking It Seriously<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nMy assessment is one of qualified support. Gates\u2019s warning should be taken seriously, though not literally as a forecast.<\/p>\n
Three things support it. First, the warning is specific about its mechanism.<\/strong><\/em> <\/span>Gates is not describing a science-fiction robot uprising. He is describing human beings with harmful intent using powerful tools, most plausibly to engineer a pandemic or cripple critical infrastructure. That is the scenario the MIT experts rated among the most severe, and it is the scenario the American public fears most: Quinnipiac found that 52 percent of Americans worry more about humans using AI to harm humanity, against 33 percent who worry more about autonomous AI agents.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nSecond, the messenger matters. Gates spent decades as one of technology\u2019s most confident optimists.<\/strong><\/em> <\/span>He told The Washington Post in August, \u201cI\u2019m surprised to feel this way. I\u2019ve never seen a problem that innovation can\u2019t solve.\u201d When an optimist of that standing changes his mind, the shift is evidence in its own right.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThird, a billion deaths is not an absurd ceiling for a catastrophic pandemic.<\/strong><\/em> <\/span>The 1918 influenza killed tens of millions in a world of fewer than two billion people. A deliberately engineered pathogen released into today\u2019s interconnected world could, in a worst case, be far worse. Gates spent years warning about pandemic preparedness before COVID-19 arrived, and he was right about that.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Case for Caution<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThere are equally good reasons not to treat the number as a prediction. Gates offered no probability and no timeline. \u201cPowerful enough to drive events\u201d describes a capability, not a likelihood, and the public conversation tends to collapse the two. Critics such as the Heritage Foundation\u2019s E.J. Antoni argue that apocalyptic rhetoric serves the incumbents by justifying regulation that only they can afford. The O\u2019Reilly authors go further, calling doomsday AI \u201cmore likely a smokescreen to divert attention away from real harms that are happening now.\u201d<\/p>\n
There is also a gap between the warning and the policy Ackerman draws from it. If the main danger is people with harmful intent, the most effective defenses may be in biology and cybersecurity rather than in AI governance alone: DNA synthesis screening, pandemic preparedness, and hardened infrastructure, all of which AEI\u2019s Pethokoukis and the RAND reports he cites recommend. A state monopoly over frontier models does not stop a terrorist who uses a downloaded open-weight model.<\/p>\n
The best summary comes from Appelbaum, speaking on The New York Times\u2019s \u201cThe Opinions\u201d: the industry\u2019s warnings deserve to be taken \u201cseriously, if not literally.\u201d That is the right posture toward Gates. His number is a statement about stakes, not odds, and stakes of that size justify serious precaution even when the odds are uncertain.<\/p>\n
\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nCan the Industry Regulate Itself?<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nThe Accord at the White House<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThe question is no longer hypothetical. At the end of September, the leaders of Anthropic, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia, and xAI met with President Trump and agreed to a voluntary accord. According to the Associated Press, it commits each company to strong internal controls, an independent external auditor to check whether those controls work, and a board committee to review the audit reports. The president said the arrangement would be \u201cmorally binding.\u201d<\/p>\n
I think I\u2019m seeing tremendous self-policing. And they understand that they have to self-police.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 President Donald Trump, as reported by the Associated Press<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe Evidence Against<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThe evidence from 2026 does not support confidence that self-policing will be enough. Mark MacCarthy and David Beier, writing in Tech Policy Press, report that the accord, known as the Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities, \u201cis widely regarded as toothless self-regulation.\u201d The Hugging Face breach occurred because a company did not switch on a monitoring layer it had already built. When METR and Redwood Research investigated, METR president Chris Painter told TIME that cybersecurity practices were outside the scope OpenAI had agreed to, and with no legal requirement to share information, the investigators had little leverage.<\/p>\n
Society shouldn\u2019t want to rely on us […] doing this improvised process of guessing what the public wants.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Chris Painter, METR, quoted in Harry Booth, \u201cAI Safety and Cybersecurity Should Be Allies. Instead, They\u2019re at Odds,\u201d TIME<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe incentives also point the wrong way. Pozniak\u2019s framework describes \u201creckless actors\u201d as those for whom \u201cthe private payoff to speed or scale dominates the private payoff to caution.\u201d In a race for market share and, increasingly, for initial public offerings, that describes the competitive structure of the entire frontier industry, whatever the intentions of individual leaders. The public has drawn its own conclusion: Quinnipiac found that 74 percent of Americans have little or no trust in the leaders of AI companies, and 86 percent support independent safety standards even if they slow development.<\/p>\n
The Evidence For, and the Capture Problem<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nSelf-regulation is not worthless. Companies have real technical capacity that no regulator yet matches. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark has said that \u201cmost labs have different ways of being able to pull the plug.\u201d In October, Anthropic gave METR permanent, employee-like access to evaluate its safety practices, and Elon Musk said his company would \u201cprobably\u201d do the same. Industry also controls most of the evidence about how these systems behave.<\/p>\n
But critics on both left and right point to a more troubling dynamic. Antoni of Heritage argues that the largest firms, which he says hold nearly 90 percent of AI revenue, want regulation because each rule \u201ccreates fixed compliance costs the giants can absorb and startups cannot.\u201d Pozniak offers a more neutral version of the same caution: \u201cA firm that publicly supports regulation may be supporting the version that raises its competitors\u2019 costs more than its own.\u201d<\/p>\n
The conclusion is that industry self-regulation is necessary but insufficient.<\/strong><\/span> Companies must build the controls, because only they can. But the verification of those controls, and the consequences when they fail, must sit outside the companies. That is the logic of every mature safety regime, from aviation to pharmaceuticals. As AI policy expert Jaxson Khan told CBC News, \u201cIn no major industry, do we let companies completely police themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nDoes Washington Have the Expertise?<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nThe Capacity Gap<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nIf the state is to be the Leviathan, it must understand what it governs. Here the evidence is sobering. NPR\u2019s Eric McDaniel reported that Senate staff are barred from using all but the most basic AI chat tools; the agentic systems at the center of the regulatory debate have not been authorized by the Senate sergeant at arms.<\/p>\n
Congress, unfortunately, has always lagged behind. Right now you\u2019ve got lawmakers writing rules for technology they, in many cases, never even used and that\u2019s a problem.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u2014 Adam Kovacevich, Chamber of Progress, quoted in Eric McDaniel, NPR<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe problem is not only in Congress. At the Brookings Institution\u2019s October 6 panel on U.S. and Chinese AI regulation, Matt Sheehan of the Carnegie Endowment said of current safety arrangements that \u201cthe independent verification part of it is not there currently.\u201d A UK parliamentary report summarized by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer found that the British AI Security Institute, one of the world\u2019s most capable government testing bodies, \u201chas no regulatory authority and cannot demand access to foundation models either before or after their deployment.\u201d It also described regulators as lacking \u201csufficient funding, technical expertise and statutory powers.\u201d And pace compounds every shortfall. CBC News reported that, according to Anthropic, its agents\u2019 capabilities double roughly every four months. Manon Paquet of McGill University, a former Canadian public servant, put it simply: \u201cIt\u2019s very hard to regulate something first that you don\u2019t fully understand yet.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\nPockets of Strength<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThe picture is not entirely bleak. The federal government does have deep technical talent in specific places: NIST, which wrote the AI Risk Management Framework; the National Security Agency and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and the Department of Energy\u2019s national laboratories. Notably, the Schatz-Warner bill would draw its AI Safety Board from exactly these institutions, plus Treasury and independent technical experts. The problem is less an absence of expertise than an absence of a statutory home that gathers it, gives it authority, and protects it from political interference.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nThe Political Layer<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\nThere is also the question of political leadership, which is where the debate becomes partisan. The administration\u2019s position is that heavy regulation would hand the lead to China; Vice President J.D. Vance has said, \u201cI don\u2019t think Americans should be scared of anything,\u201d and Heritage\u2019s Bret Swanson has warned against a \u201cbureaucratic, heavy-handed new set of regulations\u201d that could \u201csquash this huge economic engine.\u201d Critics see things differently. Geoffrey Hinton told CBC that the president is \u201cill-advised\u201d about AI, and Cato\u2019s Londo\u00f1o, writing from a libertarian perspective, worries that the administration\u2019s improvised use of export controls shows an executive with too much unchecked discretion rather than too little expertise. Both critiques suggest the same remedy: clear statutes that define what regulators may do, staffed by people who understand the technology.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nThe honest answer to whether Washington has the expertise is therefore no, not yet. The United States does not currently have, in any single accountable body, the combination of technical expertise, legal authority, and political insulation needed to regulate the full range of AI risks reliably. It has the raw materials to build one. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were also built from scratch in response to new technologies. The Times\u2019s editorial board notes that within a year of the first atomic bombings, the United States had created a commission to govern nuclear energy. Building that capacity is precisely the work Ackerman\u2019s essay should have urged in specific terms.<\/p>\n
\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nHow Other Writers Frame the Near Future<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nPlacing Ackerman among his contemporaries clarifies what is distinctive about his essay and what is missing.<\/p>\n
James Pethokoukis of AEI represents the cautious-progress school. He is skeptical that \u201canything like a plausible case has been made that an AI apocalypse is possible,\u201d but he still proposes five principles: preserve optionality, monitor the frontier, implement containment, harden civilization, and keep inventing better defenses. His approach is less dramatic than Ackerman\u2019s and considerably more operational.<\/p>\n
The New York Times editorial board, as described by Appelbaum, sits closer to Ackerman\u2019s goal but takes a different route: a dedicated federal commission with testing and monitoring powers, mandatory labeling of AI interactions, and a democratically written \u201cconstitution\u201d for AI behavior. Appelbaum\u2019s remark that Anthropic\u2019s use of the word \u201cconstitution\u201d for its own corporate document is \u201ca form of gaslighting\u201d echoes Ackerman\u2019s concern about private actors claiming sovereign roles.<\/p>\n
The Brennan Center\u2019s analysis is the most technically specific of the group, focusing on the overlooked risks of internal testing and on biosafety-style containment. Kevin Frazier in Lawfare is the most skeptical of dramatic state powers such as kill switches, warning that \u201ca mechanism designed to contain risk could become a risk in itself.\u201d The Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, from different directions, warn that the state may be the bigger danger, whether through censorship or regulatory capture.<\/p>\n
And in the press, TIME\u2019s Harry Booth documents a quieter but consequential argument between AI safety researchers and cybersecurity professionals over whether the summer\u2019s incidents were evidence of uncontrollable machines or of careless companies. That argument matters because its outcome will shape which solutions get funded.<\/p>\n
Against this field, Ackerman\u2019s contribution is the frame of legitimacy and sovereignty. What he lacks, and what nearly all of these other writers provide, is a mechanism.<\/p>\n
\u2767 \u2726 \u2767<\/span><\/p>\nConclusion: Specific Goals for a Safer Future<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\nAckerman is right that the question of who holds final authority over the most dangerous AI systems must be answered democratically, by Congress, and not left to a president or a chief executive. He is wrong to suggest that the answer can be borrowed from the Middle Ages,<\/strong><\/span> and his essay stops at the point where the hard work begins. What follows is an attempt to finish it, with goals for both government and industry, framed for a problem that does not respect borders.<\/p>\nGoals for Government<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n\n- Give AI oversight a statutory home.<\/strong> <\/span>Congress should create, by law, a single accountable federal authority for frontier AI with defined jurisdiction, published thresholds for which systems it covers, and its own technical staff drawn from NIST, CISA, the NSA, and the national laboratories. Barrett\u2019s coordinating office and the Schatz-Warner safety board offer starting points.<\/li>\n
- Require independent testing before release.<\/strong> <\/span>Covered models should pass standardized, independent safety evaluations and audits before public deployment, along the lines of Cantwell\u2019s framework and the testing powers the UK report recommends for its AI Security Institute.<\/li>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/ZB9Hb-1024x687.jpg\")