‘People Regulating AI are the Ones Who Struggled with High School Maths’
Naval Ravikant, a renowned entrepreneur and thinker, recently expressed sharp criticism of the efforts to regulate artificial intelligence (AI), equating such attempts to the suppression of mathematical innovation. “These are the same kids who were scared of maths in high school and are now writing regulations to prevent other kids from doing maths,” he said. Ravikant believes that restricting AI development stifles one of humanity’s last remaining sources of innovation. His critique underscores a growing divide between those driving technological advancement and policymakers who, according to him, lack technical comprehension. “These are the people who literally do not know how these things work… They are going to show up and say you can’t run this computation these many times. Are you going to arrest people for doing mathematics?” he added, agitated. Ravikant’s scepticism stems from his belief in the interconnectedness of knowledge and creativity. “If you limit computers and computation, you have frozen innovation across all domains, not just AI,” he added. His views reflect a deep concern about the unintended consequences of stifling the private sector’s ability to innovate, particularly in contrast to unregulated advancements by competing nations like China. “What happens when others build drone swarms powered by AI while we’ve shackled ourselves with regulations?” warned Ravikant. Regulate the Roots Another thinker and author, Yuval Noah Harari, expressed nuanced views on regulating AI. He said that while AI could bring immense benefits—such as advancing healthcare and education—it also threatens to undermine human agency and democratic processes if left unchecked.“There is no way to regulate the AI revolution in advance. What we really need are institutions that can understand and react to things as they develop. If democracy means a human conversation, it collapses when robots join the circle and you don’t know who’s who,” said Harari. So, what’s the solution? Harari believes that “counterfeit humans”, or AI entities impersonating humans, must be banned to preserve trust and transparency in society. He stressed the need for regulations that hold companies accountable for the actions of their algorithms rather than the behaviour of users. Harari also warned that the speed of progress in AI outpaces humanity’s ability to adapt, and called for international institutions to monitor developments and advise on regulations dynamically. Regulate with Caution Anthropic chief Dario Amodei emphasised a pragmatic and collaborative approach to regulate AI. He highlighted the urgency of regulation, stating, “If there’s nothing watching over us as an industry, there’s no guarantee we’ll do the right thing, and the stakes are very high.” Amodei acknowledged the challenges of poorly designed rules, warning, “The worst enemy of those who want real accountability is badly designed regulation.” Reflecting on California’s vetoed AI regulation bill SB 1047, he noted the importance of balancing safety and practicality, supporting measures that are “surgical, targeted at serious risks, and something people can actually comply with.” For Amodei, the focus must shift from polarisation to a shared goal of responsible AI governance, fostering a “race to the top” where companies compete by adopting best practices for safety and ethics. Meanwhile, OpenAI chief Sam Altman advocated for a balanced and collaborative approach to AI regulation. He further highlighted the role of governments, companies, and society in setting guardrails, drawing parallels to industries like aviation: “Airplanes are really safe. That happened largely as a result of old-fashioned regulation.” While cautioning against overregulation which could stifle progress, he stressed the need for iterative governance: “Society should play the role there… a complex negotiation of a lot of different stakeholders.” Altman envisions AI as a tool to enhance human values and equity through systems that engage users deeply, stating: “The people impacted by it the most deserve the loudest say in its governance.” “If I had one wish for AI, it would be to love humanity,” he said, sharing his ultimate wish for AI.
Naval Ravikant argues that regulating AI is akin to restricting the free exercise of mathematics, criticising the lack of understanding by regulators.
Naval Ravikant argues that regulating AI is akin to restricting the free exercise of mathematics, criticising the lack of understanding by regulators.
["AI in Education"]
["AI in Education", "Anthropic", "Go", "artificial intelligence", "OpenAI", "AI", "Git", "RAG", "ViT", "Rust", "R"]
["AI", "artificial intelligence", "OpenAI", "Anthropic", "RAG", "R", "Go", "Rust", "Git", "ViT"]
I hold a degree in political science, and am interested in how AI and online culture intersect. I am at aditi.suresh@analyticsindiamag.com &amp; x.com/aditisuresh12