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

Overbroad AI Export Controls Risk Forfeiting the AI Race
a black keyboard with a blue button on it

Overbroad AI Export Controls Risk Forfeiting the AI Race

The nation that wins the global AI race will hold decisive military and economic advantages. That’s why President Trump’s January 2025 AI Action Plan declared: “It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.”

However, AI global dominance does not just mean producing the best AI systems. It also means that the American “AI Stack” – the layered collection of tools, technologies, and frameworks that organizations use to build, train, deploy, and manage artificial intelligence applications – will become the international standard for this world-changing technology. As such, advancing a commonsense export policy for American AI chips will play a decisive role in determining whether the United States remains embedded at the core of global AI development or is gradually displaced by rival systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital generated image of green semi transparent AI word on white circuit board visualizing smart technology.

What can the success of SEMATECH teach us about winning the AI race? Explore how a bold U.S. public-private partnership revived the semiconductor industry—and why a similar model could be key to advancing AI innovation today.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

A Proven Playbook for AI Leadership: Lessons from America’s Chip Comeback

Imagine waking up to this paragraph in your favorite newspaper:

The willingness of the U.S. government to eschew partisanship and undertake a bold experiment -- an experiment based on cooperation as opposed to traditional procurement, and with accountability standards rooted in trust instead of elaborate regulations -- has led the U.S. to a position of preeminence in an industry which is vital to our nation's security and economic well-being.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing on a giant robotic hand.

As AI transforms the labor market, the U.S. faces a familiar challenge: preparing workers for new skills. A look at a 1991 Labor Department report reveals striking parallels.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

We’ve Been "Preparing" for the Future Since 1991—It Hasn't Worked

“Today, the demands on business and workers are different. Firms must meet world-class standards, and so must workers. Employers seek adaptability and the ability to learn and work in teams.”

Sound familiar?

Keep ReadingShow less