Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, from conversational models like ChatGPT to AI-generated art that rivals human creativity. However, amid this enthusiasm, a growing concern looms over the potential emergence of autonomous AI that could pose an existential threat to humanity. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently sounded the alarm in an ABC News interview, warning that the next generation of AI could be far more dangerous than the “dumb AI” we see today.
The difference between narrow AI and AGI
While AI tools like ChatGPT are impressive, they fall under the category of “narrow AI”—systems trained on vast datasets but lacking awareness, sentience, or independent decision-making. Essentially, they are sophisticated tools designed to perform specific tasks such as text generation or image creation.
However, Schmidt and other experts are not worried about these systems. Their concern lies with advanced artificial general intelligence (AGI), which could possess awareness, sentience, and the ability to act independently. AGI, in theory, would be capable of reasoning and making decisions without human oversight. While AGI does not yet exist, Schmidt warns that we are approaching a point where AI systems will be able to operate autonomously in fields such as research and weaponry—even if they do not achieve full sentience.
Risks of unregulated AI
Schmidt’s concerns are echoed by other tech leaders, including Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Musk has warned that AI could lead to civilization’s downfall, while Altman has described the worst-case scenario as “turning off the lights for all of us.” These warnings are not alarmist but reflect the real risk of AI being misused by hostile nations, terrorist groups, or irresponsible actors.
China, in particular, is viewed as a significant threat. Schmidt noted that the Chinese government recognizes AI’s potential for industrial, military, and surveillance applications. If left unregulated, advanced AI could give China a strategic edge over the United States, leading to severe consequences for global stability. Additionally, terrorist organizations could leverage AI to develop biological or nuclear weapons, further amplifying risks.
The need for regulation
Given these dangers, Schmidt and other industry leaders are calling for urgent AI regulation. While some progress has been made—such as California’s efforts to combat deepfake videos—federal-level regulation in the U.S. remains largely absent. Schmidt anticipates that this will change in the coming years as governments acknowledge the need for stronger AI safety measures.
Regulation is not just about preventing harm; it is also about ensuring that the U.S. maintains technological dominance. Competition among tech giants such as Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI is fierce, increasing the risk that safety protocols will be overlooked in the race for innovation. Without proper oversight, reckless AI development could have catastrophic consequences.
Balancing innovation and safety
Despite the risks, AI also holds tremendous potential for positive change. Schmidt envisions a future where AI empowers individuals, providing them with the equivalent of a “polymath in their pocket”—a tool that offers advice akin to Einstein or Leonardo da Vinci. However, realizing this potential requires caution and responsibility.
Schmidt’s call for regulation is not about stifling innovation; it is about ensuring AI’s responsible development. He believes that governments must play a role in shaping AI’s future alongside technologists. As he put it, “Technologists should not be the only ones making these decisions.”
A race against time
Time is running out. As AI continues to advance, the window for effective regulation is closing. Schmidt’s warnings highlight the urgency of the situation: if humanity fails to act, we may lose control over our own creation. The stakes could not be higher.
Ultimately, the question is not whether AI will change the world but how. Will it be a force for good, empowering humanity and solving some of our biggest challenges? Or will it become a tool of destruction, exploited by those with malicious intent? The answer depends on the decisions we make today.
