For years, experts in technology have sounded the alarm about the potential for advanced AI systems to inflict catastrophic damage on humanity. Yet in 2024, those warnings were overshadowed by the tech industry’s promotion of generative AI as a transformative and profitable innovation—one that conveniently aligns with their financial interests.
Critics often labeled as “AI doomers” have voiced concerns about the existential risks posed by AI: systems making life-threatening decisions, tools being weaponized by the powerful to oppress, or society destabilizing under AI’s influence.
The year 2023 appeared to herald a renaissance in technology regulation. Conversations about AI safety—once confined to niche discussions in Silicon Valley coffee shops—gained mainstream attention, featuring prominently on MSNBC, CNN, and the front pages of leading newspapers. High-profile warnings came from Elon Musk and over 1,000 technologists who called for a pause in AI development, alongside an open letter from top AI researchers warning of potential human extinction.
However, 2024 marked a turning point. The tech industry, led by figures like Marc Andreessen, countered these warnings with an optimistic narrative. In his essay “Why AI Will Save the World,” Andreessen dismissed catastrophic AI fears and advocated for a “move fast and break things” approach, urging minimal regulatory barriers. This laissez-faire stance, he argued, would prevent monopolization of AI and help the U.S. stay competitive with China—though critics noted it would also enrich companies backed by venture capital giants like a16z.
While proponents of AI doom focused on caution, the industry surged ahead. Investment in AI reached unprecedented levels, with advancements like OpenAI’s conversational phone systems and Meta’s smart glasses bringing science fiction closer to reality. Yet, the unintelligence of many AI systems—evidenced by humorous errors like Google Gemini suggesting glue as a pizza topping—fueled public skepticism about AI’s true capabilities.
The Battle Over Regulation
The debate culminated in California’s SB 1047, a controversial bill designed to address catastrophic AI risks, including mass cyberattacks and human extinction events. Despite passing the legislature, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed it, questioning its practicality. Critics of the bill, including tech investors from Y Combinator and a16z, launched a campaign against it, claiming it would criminalize developers—a claim debunked by experts.
Prominent AI researchers like Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio backed the bill, but its flaws, such as a narrow focus on model size and potential limitations on open-source innovation, hindered its adoption. The fight over SB 1047 highlighted a broader challenge: balancing regulation to mitigate risks while fostering innovation.
Shifting Focus in 2025
As 2024 ended, AI doomers faced an uphill battle. Policymakers like Senator Mitt Romney introduced new federal legislation addressing AI risks, but critics, including a16z’s Martin Casado, dismissed such efforts as unnecessary, labeling AI “tremendously safe.”
Despite setbacks, advocates for AI safety remained optimistic. Encode, a key supporter of SB 1047, hinted at renewed efforts in 2025. Meanwhile, real-world incidents—like lawsuits against AI companies over user safety—underscored the urgent need for thoughtful regulation.
The AI debate continues to evolve, as society grapples with the dual-edged potential of this transformative technology. While innovation accelerates, the need to address ethical, social, and safety concerns grows ever more critical.
