Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Preparing for an inevitable AI emergency

Microchip labeled "AI"
Eugene Mymrin/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. Starting this summer, he will serve as a Tarbell fellow.

Artificial intelligence is advancing at a speed and in ways that were unanticipated even by the foremost AI experts. Just a few decades ago, AI was largely theoretical, existing primarily in the realms of science fiction and academic research. Today, AI permeates nearly every aspect of our lives, from the algorithms that curate social media feeds to the autonomous systems that drive cars. This rapid advancement, while promising in many respects, also heralds a new era of uncertainty and potential peril.


The pace at which AI technology is evolving outstrips our ability to predict its trajectory. Breakthroughs occur at a staggering rate, often in areas previously deemed infeasible or far-off. For instance, the development of GPT-3, an AI language model capable of producing human-like text, astonished even seasoned AI researchers with its capabilities and the speed at which it surpassed its predecessors. Such rapid advancements suggest that the future of AI holds both immense potential and significant risks.

One of the most pressing concerns is the increased likelihood of emergencies exacerbated by AI. More sophisticated AI could enable more complex and devastating cyberattacks, as malicious actors leverage AI to breach security systems that were previously impenetrable. Similarly, advances in AI-driven biotechnology could lead to the creation of more deadly bioweapons, posing new and unprecedented threats to global security. Moreover, the rapid automation of jobs could lead to widespread unemployment, causing significant social disruption. The displacement of workers by AI could further entrench economic inequality and trigger unrest, as societies struggle to adapt to these changes.

The likelihood of an AI emergency paired with our poor track record of responding to similar emergencies is cause for concern. The Covid-19 pandemic starkly highlighted the inadequacies of our constitutional order in emergency responses. The pandemic exposed deep flaws in our preparedness and response mechanisms, demonstrating how ill-equipped we are to handle sudden, large-scale crises. Our fragmented political system, with its layers of bureaucracy and competing jurisdictions, proved unable to respond swiftly and effectively. This deficiency raises serious concerns about our ability to manage future emergencies, particularly those that could be precipitated by AI.

Given the profound uncertainty surrounding when and how an AI accident might occur and the potential damage it could cause, it is imperative that AI companies bear a significant responsibility for helping us prepare for such eventualities. The private sector, which stands to benefit enormously from AI advancements, must also contribute to safeguarding society against the risks these technologies pose. One concrete step that AI companies should take is to establish an emergency fund specifically intended for responding to AI-related accidents.

Such a fund would serve as a financial safety net, providing resources to mitigate the effects of AI emergencies. It could be used to support rapid response efforts, fund research into preventative measures, and assist individuals and communities affected by AI-driven disruptions. By contributing to this fund, AI companies would acknowledge their role in creating technologies that, while beneficial, also carry inherent risks. This approach would not only demonstrate corporate responsibility but also help ensure that society is better prepared to respond to AI-related crises.

The establishment of an emergency fund for AI disasters would require a collaborative effort between the private sector and government. Congress could mandate contributions from AI companies based on their revenue or the scale of their AI operations. This would ensure that the financial burden of preparing for AI emergencies is shared equitably and that sufficient resources are available when needed. To safeguard the proper use of the funds, Congress should establish an independent entity tasked with securing contributions and responding to claims for reimbursement.

In conclusion, the rapid advancement of AI presents both incredible opportunities and significant risks. While we cannot predict exactly how AI will evolve or what specific emergencies it may precipitate, we can take proactive steps to prepare for these eventualities. AI companies, as key stakeholders in the development and deployment of these technologies, must play a central role in this effort. By contributing to an emergency fund for AI disasters, they can help ensure that we are equipped to respond to crises in a legitimate and effective fashion.

AI models are being built. Accidents will come. The question is whether we will be prepared to respond in a legitimate and effective fashion.


Read More

An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less