Leaders from some of the companies at the forefront of the AI Revolution appeared on Capitol Hill this week to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee. Their remarks focused primarily on America’s artificial intelligence capabilities amid a dynamic geotechnical landscape. These leaders emphasized the benefits of building with technological freedom and pointed to competitive imbalances around the world. They largely agreed that U.S. technology companies and policymakers should work together to make American hardware and software the global computing platforms of choice.
One of the central debates in the AI Revolution has been whether companies should have the freedom to release large language models (LLMs) at will or whether the industry should adopt pre-approval standards. Said differently, the conversation centers on balancing innovation with safety. In my opinion, both goals can be achieved. Users may likely gravitate toward the model that delivers the best performance – whether that means being the most current, insightful, or logically sound. Even though ‘best’ is subjective and may vary by use case, handicapping an industry because of safety concerns may be a step too far. The history of technology has largely shown us that ‘best’ isn’t often dangerous or malicious, as applications seeking these outcomes often don’t gain lasting mainstream adoption. The ‘winner’ of the AI race – the technology that is most widely adopted – may likely be a function of which company can iterate the fastest and build the most compelling, trustworthy products.
When asked by a senator where the U.S. should land on the spectrum between freedom and safety, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman responded, “I’m nervous about standards being created too early…If we can’t build the products that people want, then people may use other products that are not stymied in the same way. The industry itself is moving quickly towards those right standards by having the freedom to innovate.” Microsoft Vice Chairman Brad Smith also advocated for a ‘regulation light’ approach, suggesting that content labeling – such as disclosing whether content is human- or AI-generated – could play an important role in the near future. All speakers agreed that one of America’s key advantages in developing AI technologies is a regulatory environment that does not require pre-approval for innovation.
The leaders also offered a broader reflections on the mission of the tech industry and the role of their respective companies. Brad Smith’s remarks stood out for their optimism and long-term vision, capturing why technology has been such a powerful force for progress in recent decades. He said: “Are we in this industry trying to build machines that are better than people, or are we trying to build machines that will help people become better? Emphatically, it is and needs to be the latter. [I have learned] in my 32 years in this industry to never underestimate what technology can do, how quickly it can move, and what it can accomplish. But the second thing I’ve learned is too seldom discussed even though it stares us in the face every day: never underestimate what people can do. Never underestimate human ambition. Never underestimate what a person can do when given a better technological tool and the ability to learn how to put it to use. That’s the story of this industry and of this country.”
The testimony offered by these technology leaders emphasized that America’s leading role in the AI Revolution is a product of technological freedom. While mistakes can and will happen, companies are strongly incentivized to course correct and build better, safer products. The winner of the AI Race may well be determined by who can innovate the fastest – a trait that American companies have honed for decades.
7955770.1.A
