AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
Apple closed above a $5 trillion market valuation for the first time, capping Tim Cook’s 15-year tenure and setting a high bar for incoming CEO John Ternus, as the company faces growing pressure to strengthen its AI capabilities and sustain growth.
3 min
Apple AAPL 0.50%increase; became the second company to close above the $5 trillion mark on Wednesday, capping the Tim Cook era, and posing an implicit challenge to new Chief Executive John Ternus.
The iPhone-maker’s shares closed at a record, just enough to push the company’s market capitalization into territory that only chip colossus Nvidia occupies. Apple’s market value has surpassed $5 trillion six times previously during intraday trading, but it had never closed above that level, which it squeaked past on Wednesday, ending the day at $5.005 trillion according to Dow Jones Market Data.
Cook’s act will be tough to follow. During his 15-year tenure as CEO, which ended Aug. 31, Apple’s market capitalization multiplied by a factor of 13. He nearly quadrupled the number of iPhones sold annually. He grew its highly profitable services business from $10 billion annually to more than $100 billion. He launched the Apple Watch and AirPods, which together generate more than $30 billion a year. He poured Apple’s cash into more than $1 trillion worth of share buybacks and dividends.
Today, Apple shares trade at a premium compared with the overall S&P 500 even though the company’s revenue growth rate is slower than the index’s average. That is because the company’s shares are viewed as safe, and its business predictable, say analysts.
A key to Apple’s success under Cook is how it has limited capital spending, juicing the company’s returns for investors and greatly reducing the risks of its business. That has never been more apparent than during the AI build-out, when big tech rivals have rushed to spend gargantuan sums on data centers while Apple has focused on its core businesses making devices and selling high-margin services for them.
Apple investors are so confident in its business that they have driven up its shares despite big cost increases that threaten profit margins. The cost of memory and storage chips inside iPhones, Macs and iPads has skyrocketed as demand for those chips from data centers has led to shortages. Apple has responded by raising prices across its device lineup, including for older model iPhones that would typically get a price cut.
In theory, such a move could hurt Apple since iPhone buyers might wait longer to upgrade their devices. Yet since the first wave of price increases Apple shares have jumped 25%.
In part, that is because investors think Apple device buyers will pay the higher prices, enabling Apple to generate as much or more in total profits even if margins are down, said Bank of America analyst Wamsi Mohan. He added that Apple’s new foldable iPhone Duo is likely to be popular and that the new Siri AI will prompt iPhone upgrades.
AI has long been viewed as Apple’s Achilles’ heel. The company failed in its efforts to build its own frontier model, and it also allowed its Siri assistant to fall far behind rivals. ChatGPT revolutionized what smartphone users expect from chatbots.
Apple hopes to turn a corner with the new Siri AI. Built with Google’s help, Apple’s redesigned chatbot was released this fall. It still lags behind rival AI systems in key respects, though it has the advantage of being built directly into the device that many people already use, their iPhone. Apple also has access to more personal data, which could theoretically be used for compelling AI features, though new AI agents show the technology is advancing faster than Apple’s ability to keep up.
Tech rivals know how important it is to control the devices that people use to deliver their services. Perhaps most threatening to Apple, OpenAI is planning a family of AI-powered devices. It has poached hundreds of Apple employees to drive its device strategy. Apple responded in July by suing OpenAI, alleging it stole Apple trade secrets.
OpenAI has said it is “not aware of any evidence that this complaint has merit” and alleged in a new legal filing Wednesday that Apple poached one of its own employees who took confidential files with him. Apple said in response that it had found no evidence supporting the new allegation.
AI could be the battleground where Ternus makes his mark, either ushering in a new era of innovation and growth for Apple or finally losing its status as the company that has defined how people interact with computers.
