At the conclusion of “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” Arnold Schwarzenegger’s T-800 character is submerged in molten metal to prevent his processing chip from falling into malicious hands. As the Terminator descends, he delivers an iconic thumbs-up gesture. Let us consign the Terminator and other fictitious robots and AIs to that molten abyss and exclude them from public policy debates on AI. Policymakers should refrain from referencing or relying on fictional scenarios as justification for AI regulation. Otherwise, America risks squandering its global leadership in AI, and American citizens may never reap its full benefits.
Despite their inaccuracy, fictional comparisons hold a certain appeal. Stories and myths are inherent to human nature, and referencing them to capture attention is a deeply human trait. They foster a shared narrative and provide a point of reference that is universally understood. While most individuals have likely interacted with AI in some capacity, they may only perceive it through the lens of science fiction, making references to these narratives a tempting communication strategy. However, this inclination is neither beneficial nor conducive to effective policymaking.
A recent White House incident exemplifies this error. According to the Associated Press, “At Camp David one weekend, [the president] relaxed by watching the Tom Cruise film ‘Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.’ The film’s villain is a sentient and rogue AI known as “the Entity” that sinks a submarine and kills its crew in the movie’s opening minutes. ‘If he hadn’t already been concerned about what could go wrong with AI before that movie, he saw plenty more to worry about,’ said [deputy White House chief of staff Bruce] Reed, who watched the film with the president.”
Subsequently, in late October 2023, he issued a comprehensive executive order on AI, the third largest in American history, aimed at mitigating the potential misuse of AI systems. In a July 2023 Senate hearing on AI regulation, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., conflated fiction with reality when he asserted the urgent need to regulate AI because, “The future is not science fiction or fantasy, it’s not even the future, it’s here and now.”
It remains unclear which specific science fiction scenario prompted his remarks beyond a vague notion of AI as a “scary” technology, as he had stated earlier in his opening statement. It is challenging to identify a public policy sector that invokes fiction as frequently as technology policy. Surprisingly, discussions on financial regulation, tax law, healthcare, and agriculture rarely draw on science fiction or fantasy scenarios.
Exceptions might include energy policy, defense and homeland security, as well as biotech and bioethics. At all levels, public policy should be grounded in facts, not fiction. Equating fictional AI to reality is akin to comparing a teddy bear to a grizzly bear: while they share superficial similarities, their capabilities are vastly different, rendering the comparison essentially meaningless.
Nearly every fictional depiction of an AI system relies on energy and material resources that either do not exist or are purely theoretical at best. We do not formulate policies based on magical abilities or scenarios from Harry Potter; similarly, we should avoid permitting fictional AI to guide our public policy. Reality should not be shaped by fictitious scenarios because doing so will prevent us from realizing the full potential of AI and other innovations.
The benefits of AI are immense. PwC analysts predict that AI will contribute $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. Generative AI systems have discovered a method to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. AI systems promise to deliver higher-quality, more tailored video entertainment and educational opportunities. People from all walks of life and income levels stand to benefit from these advancements, with the most significant gains accruing to those with the lowest incomes.
Crafting policies that are not grounded in reality will result in flawed policies with detrimental real-world consequences. AI is already boosting productivity, and as systems mature and permeate more economic activities, economic growth will accelerate.
If laws are enacted solely to prevent science fiction scenarios, these benefits are at grave risk of never materializing. Policymakers must banish fictional AI from state Capitols and congressional chambers, relegating it to its rightful place: the realm of beloved movies and books. A future of abundance that transcends our wildest dreams is at stake.
