Thursday, October 22, 2026
These days, no matter where you look for some quick news, there’s an item about artificial intelligence. It seems like everyone is an expert on the subject, and has an opinion on A.I.’s pros and cons. What’s scary is that the real experts want some type of guardrails or protections against its abuse, and politicians, who have much less expertise, can’t come to a consensus on anything.
During the course of a typical day, we experience the wonders of A.I. in the most subtle ways. As I type a text message, I notice that it’s attempting to finish my thoughts before I do. That’s a simple example. Try using A.I. on any subject and you’ll find it asking you if you want more answers, or if you’d like a memo drafted for you. It’s ready, willing and able to do anything you ask, which is what makes it so scary.
Up until a few months ago, A.I. was in the news but not dominating it. In July, Geoffrey Hinton, who’s been called “the godfather of A.I.,” warned lawmakers that humanity could lose control of it within a year if proper safeguards were not established. Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has been arguing that robust ethical and technical guardrails are needed to prevent misuse or loss of control.
To heat up the debate, Bill Gates recently said he has been “growing increasingly alarmed by the rate of change that A.I. is undergoing, especially because there are no guardrails in place.” Gates also said, “I’m just stunned at the lack of concern and discussion outside of the industry.” A few weeks ago, a number of well-known industry figures sounded the same alarm — and then did a quick turnaround when summoned to the White House.
In an effort to quell any alarm, President Trump threw cold water on the discussion, claiming that there’s no need for any protection, and there’s no such thing as a runaway A.I. He gathered every big tech name you can think of at the White House and got them to agree that the industry could regulate itself, and didn’t need any help from Congress. That’s the equivalent of the fox guarding the henhouse.
As the drama has deepened, a number of elected officials, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, have been yelling from the rooftops that Congress has a role to play, and has to do it now. I have no doubt that Sanders has some knowledge about the subject, but most of the members of Congress still haven’t figured out the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, so the last thing to expect is a quick bipartisan solution. Maybe the next Congress will do something, but don’t hold your breath.
I’m one of the least-qualified people to offer an opinion on A.I., but I do remember a frightening television show called “Person of Interest,” which aired on CBS from 2011 to 2016. It was about an advanced artificial intelligence computer system built by a reclusive billionaire software genius named Harold Finch, played by Michael Emerson. The machine surveilled the world and used predictive algorithms to flag people who were about to be involved in violent crimes.
It sent Social Security numbers to Finch and his field partner, John Reese, played by Jim Caviezel, essentially telling the good guys what the bad guys were planning so they could stop it. In the final seasons, a malicious rival A.I. system called Samaritan was brought online, creating a god-against-god cyber war. In the finale, the characters used a cyber weapon that, when uploaded to a satellite, destroyed both computer systems to save humanity from digital control.
I think that the president, all of the tech barons and the elected officials with some knowledge of A.I. should be locked in a room to watch the entire “Person of Interest” series, so they can genuinely understand the technology’s real threat. They might figure out that “guardrails” isn’t a dirty word.
Jerry Kremer was a state assemblyman for 23 years, and chaired the Assembly’s Ways and Means Committee for 12 years. He currently chairs the Capitol Insight Group, a government relations firm. Comments? jkremer@liherald.com.
