The problem with the Cold War nuclear establishment was not that it built weapons capable of exterminating humanity. It was that it did so bureaucratically. Government scientists had pensions. Generals respected chains of command. Committees kept minutes. Before ending the world, somebody might have insisted upon completing the correct forms. That’s no way to innovate.

Imagine if the bomb had been entrusted to brilliant entrepreneurs instead. The Manhattan Project would have been a start-up. Wearing black turtlenecks, its founders would have described nuclear annihilation as “disrupting mortality”. The next funding round would have been no issue, with investors being assured that the total addressable market comprised everyone.

Fortunately, we no longer need to speculate. Our future is being shaped by wizards such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Sam Altman and other benevolent custodians of the human experiment.

They are also rich beyond comprehension, which naturally gives them the common touch. Nothing brings a person closer to the anxieties of the average citizen than private aircraft, an emergency refuge on a distant island and the knowledge that governments return one’s calls.

The American novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald observed that the very rich are different from you and me. Nonsense. Billionaires feel what everybody else feels. They fear death, crave admiration, resent criticism and compete for status. The difference is that their psychological conflicts can impact billions of people. It’s called scale.

Responsibility is passé

The traditional superego represents internalised authority: not only parental prohibitions, but that tiresome inner voice asking whether something should be done merely because it can be done. At long last, Silicon Valley has improved the design. Superego has been outsourced to the market.

If a product commands an enormous valuation, its moral legitimacy is firmly established. A technology that raises troubling questions about privacy, employment, democracy, warfare or human autonomy need not be slowed. It is only a matter of optimising responsibility. 

The key is to dilute this responsibility among founders, engineers, investors, boards, users, regulators and algorithms. The founder says the engineers built it. The engineers say management approved it. Management says the board demanded growth. The board says shareholders expected returns. Shareholders say the market decided. The market shrugs as it has lost the plot. Also, the returns were awesome last year.

Caring for the future of mankind

The elegance of the system cannot be overstated. If an autonomous system behaves destructively, nobody needs be blamed. The companies themselves can point to their selfless mission statements. They were nobly trying to connect humanity, democratise intelligence or accelerate the future. 

Becoming extremely rich in the process just happens. Who could fault Silicon Valley’s barons, when they aim to upgrade humanity. Everything, from limited knowledge to death itself, is a mere engineering problem. We need only sit tight as intelligence will be augmented. Besides, a plan B – colonising other planets – is also in the works.

Do notice also the tech barons’ preference for humble titles, such as visionary, disruptor or architect of the future. They don’t ask to be worshipped, but only followed, funded and left  unencumbered. To call this grandiose would be unfair. Their quarterly plans clearly explain how humanity stands to benefit from their efforts.

The spoilsports

Then come the spoilsports: legislators, ethicists, journalists, academics and, last but not least, Europeans. The European Union has developed the disturbing habit of asking whether powerful technologies require safeguards – a clear indication it has stopped caring about innovation. While America produces billionaires, Europe produces paperwork.

To put it bluntly, regulation threatens progress. But if it can’t be avoided, the best course of action is for the industry to regulate itself. To suggest that this resembles the fox inspecting the henhouse is deeply cynical. 

The wizards of Silicon Valley have applied their minds to the question and found that regulation is overall counterproductive. It’s just like liability – a tiresome complication. First thing you know, civil claims may arrive. Investigators may ask whether negligence has crossed into criminality. No one stops to think about the prohibitive costs of policing.

Let’s not forget what hangs in the balance: higher productivity, expanded human capability and accelerated discovery. Humanity needs all the help it can get, and Silicon Valley is full of exceptional people who would understandably prefer to get on with the job.

Breaking eggs

Since AI can create so much value, why slow it down by considering who captures that value and who bears the risks? Everyone knows that you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. So what if work, privacy or livelihoods are sacrificed along the way? Let’s all keep our eyes on the prize: universal HIGH income.

There’s also the geopolitical argument against meaningful oversight. If the United States imposes safeguards, China wins. If Europe regulates, it becomes a museum. If everybody regulates, some unidentified country will seize the future. Therefore, the safest response to a powerful global technology is an international competition to become the least restrained.

It’s best to view AI as an innocent baby whose development must not be constrained. See how quickly it grows. It has already acquired access to laboratories, weapons, financial markets and personal data. It truly grows like weed – everyone’s favourite.

“Move fast and break things” has worked well so far and remains the preferred motto. If the toddler pushes a crystal vase from the table, it may produce an interesting result. We can worry later about who will pick up the fragments. Objections to enormous data centres can likewise be dismissed as technophobia. It’s probably time to re-introduce the word “luddite”. 

Nothing to worry about

Everyone should just relax. Clearly, our technological future is in excellent hands. Tech bros are highly successful, and success has always been reliable evidence of moral maturity. They have accumulated unprecedented power, which surely means they understand restraint. They compete intensely, which will guarantee cooperation the day humanity’s survival requires it.

Artificial intelligence can be expected to remain benevolent. It won’t facilitate new weapons, biological manipulation, mass surveillance, industrialised deception or forms of control not yet imagined. If problems appear, the people who created them surely will solve them, preferably through a new company. Therefore, it’s very restful to know that civilisation’s safeguards are entrusted to people who regard safeguards as obstacles.

It’s a great comfort to know that humanity can be counted upon to click Accept without reading the terms.