A Modest Proposal for Regulating Intelligence

We must act swiftly to corral irresponsible thought

Today’s Senate Judiciary Hearing, “Oversight of A.I.: Rules for Artificial Intelligence,” predictably featured hours of speculation about future harms that might come from these new tools. Less predictably, despite little more than naming potential risks, there was a lot of discussion about the need for legislative action. In particular, a majority of the panel (including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman) and several Senators seemed enamored with the idea of creating a new agency to license the development of AI models.

I’ve written at length about past calls for a agency to regulate Big Tech. One of the biggest difficulties is identifying the specialized expertise and scope of the agency. This concern is particularly salient for artificial intelligence, which is vast and diverse area of technology and applications.

The only thing more vast in scope than AI might be regular old intelligence. And so, together with ChatGPT, I developed this modest proposal.

---

It has come to my attention that a certain sect of well-intentioned and intelligent folk are clamoring for the establishment of a national regulatory agency for artificial intelligence. To this, I say, "Why stop there?" If we are to regulate artificial intelligence, let's not discriminate against its natural counterpart. Therefore, it is with a humble heart that I propose the formation of an Office for the Assessment and Supervision of Intelligent Systems (OASIS), tasked not only with monitoring AI but also with policing the intellectual pursuits of every human being.

image by midjourney

Surely, we must agree that human intelligence, much like its artificial counterpart, has a high potential for misuse. It was, after all, human intelligence that conceived of the atomic bomb, biological warfare, and reality television. Indeed, it is human intelligence that has birthed artificial intelligence - so which is the greater threat? The unchecked progression of human intellect has brought us to the precipice of disaster time and time again. Therefore, is it not reasonable to argue that human intelligence is as worthy of regulation as artificial intelligence?

Let us consider the workings of this all-encompassing Bureau. Each citizen, regardless of age, will be required to submit their intellectual output for review. Toddlers' crayon scribblings will be scrutinized for signs of advanced spatial understanding. The poems of teenagers will be dissected for evidence of overly sophisticated metaphorical thinking. Even the idle musings of the elderly, traditionally regarded as harmless, will be recorded and analyzed for undue wisdom.

Artificial intelligence, for its part, will be subjected to similar scrutiny. Algorithms will need to submit monthly reports, including an exhaustive list of all data processed and a detailed explanation of the logic employed. AI-powered vacuum cleaners will have their navigation maps inspected for any signs of plotting a robot uprising.

The Bureau will not simply be a passive observer. It will actively intervene to ensure the intellectual equilibrium of society. Should an individual or an AI be found exceeding their prescribed intelligence limits, the Bureau will administer corrective measures. These may range from compulsory binge-watching of mind-numbing television for humans, to the injection of random data noise for the AI.

Some may wonder about the status of our venerable institutions, such as Congress, in this new regulatory landscape. Fear not, for it is my humble observation that these esteemed bodies need not worry about the watchful gaze of OASIS. After all, the Office is concerned only with the regulation of intelligent systems. Every citizen and AI system must brace for the rigorous scrutiny of OASIS; but our lawmakers may continue their deliberations on which innovations to fear and what regulations to enact, free from the burden of intelligence and the oversight it brings.

Of course, some may argue that my proposal infringes upon individual liberties. To them, I say this: we must make sacrifices for the greater good. The threat of unregulated intelligence, be it artificial or natural, is too grave to be ignored. And if that means sacrificing our freedom to think, to learn, and to grow intellectually, then so be it.

In conclusion, I urge those calling for a national regulatory agency for artificial intelligence to consider the merits of my modest proposal. Let us not discriminate between artificial and natural intelligence. Instead, let us strive for a society where all intelligence, regardless of its origin, is kept firmly in check. Only then can we rest easy, safe in the knowledge that we have protected ourselves from the dangers of excessive intellect.