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

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less