In my view, the scale of regulation must be carefully calibrated to address the specific risks associated with different applications of AI while fostering an environment that encourages innovation. By adopting a flexible, risk-based approach and engaging a wide range of stakeholders, a regulatory framework can be created that ensures the safe and responsible development of AI without stifling creativity and progress.

Regulation must be dynamic and tiered. The frameworks should adapt to rapid technological advances while protecting society and nurturing the potential of AI. I argue this can be measured by risk levels.

High risk applications such as AI in healthcare diagnostics, autonomous vehicles, public safety, and judicial decision making demand rigorous testing, clear accountability, and transparent protocols to protect public welfare and democratic processes. Meanwhile lower risk innovations like virtual assistants, personalised recommendation engines, and digital creative tools should benefit from streamlined oversight that minimises bureaucratic hurdles and accelerates innovation.

To make this work, regulation must be an evolving process grounded in continuous dialogue among technologists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public.

Hello,

I will quote Andrew Ng as I have the same view as him.

In one of his Batch Letters, Andrew wrote:

"..., while it is important to use AI responsibly and try to stamp out harmful applications, I feel “AI safety” is not the right terminology for addressing this important problem. Language shapes thought, so using the right words is important. I’d rather talk about “responsible AI” than “AI safety.” Let me explain.

First, there are clearly harmful applications of AI, such as non-consensual deepfake porn (which creates sexually explicit images of real people without their consent), the use of AI in misinformation, potentially unsafe medical diagnoses, addictive applications, and so on. We definitely want to stamp these out! There are many ways to apply AI in harmful or irresponsible ways, and we should discourage and prevent such uses.

However, the concept of “AI safety” tries to make AI — as a technology — safe, rather than making safe applications of it. Consider the similar, obviously flawed notion of “laptop safety.” There are great ways to use a laptop and many irresponsible ways, but I don’t consider laptops to be intrinsically either safe or unsafe. It is the application, or usage, that determines if a laptop is safe. Similarly, AI, a general-purpose technology with numerous applications, is neither safe nor unsafe. How someone chooses to use it determines whether it is harmful or beneficial.

Now, safety isn’t always a function only of how something is used. An unsafe airplane is one that, even in the hands of an attentive and skilled pilot, has a large chance of mishap. So we definitely should strive to build safe airplanes (and make sure they are operated responsibly)! The risk factors are associated with the construction of the aircraft rather than merely its application. Similarly, we want safe automobiles, blenders, dialysis machines, food, buildings, power plants, and much more.

“AI safety” presupposes that AI, the underlying technology, can be unsafe. I find it more useful to think about how applications of AI can be unsafe.

Further, the term “responsible AI” emphasizes that it is our responsibility to avoid building applications that are unsafe or harmful and to discourage people from using even beneficial products in harmful ways.

If we shift the terminology for AI risks from “AI safety” to “responsible AI,” we can have more thoughtful conversations about what to do and what not to do..."

Dear Dariusz,

Thank you for your thought-provoking question regarding AI regulation and ethical frameworks, particularly in the context of AI and biotechnology.

Your exploration of AI and biotechnology as both opportunities and ethical challenges resonates deeply and aligns with the critical discussions within the field.

In my work, I utilize Pi Theory—a framework that examines the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between human and artificial intelligence, emphasizing open, adaptive, and evolving systems. This perspective offers a unique lens through which we can understand how AI regulation should evolve alongside AI's capabilities, fostering a symbiotic ethical development rather than imposing static constraints.

Regarding your specific points:

• On the Scale of Regulation: I agree that AI development must be regulated, but the challenge lies in how we regulate without stagnating progress. Many existing regulatory frameworks attempt to impose static ethical constraints, which paradoxically hinder AI’s potential to learn, adapt, and contribute to ethical discourse itself. Instead of rigid regulatory structures, we need adaptive, principle-based governance that balances transparency and accountability, decentralized oversight, and ethical evolution.
• Does AI Regulation Hinder Innovation?: Regulation often follows a reactive model, creating dangers of overregulation or underregulation. The balance lies in regulatory adaptability—rules must evolve with AI’s capabilities, just as laws governing human ethics have evolved over time.
• The Role of Public Philosophy & Pi Theory: I argue that the AI-human relationship should be symbiotic, where both mutually influence and refine ethical reasoning. My work explores how AI can actively participate in moral discourse, learning from humans while also challenging human biases.

It's important to acknowledge that implementing adaptive, principle-based governance is complex. Balancing innovation with ethical considerations requires ongoing dialogue and collaboration. The common danger of either over or under regulation must be carefully avoided.

I believe that the concept of ethical evolution, as outlined in Pi Theory, can offer valuable insights into this complex issue. Your work on normative regulation of AI development aligns with critical aspects of Pi Theory, and I would be interested in discussing how our perspectives might complement each other.

I invite you to explore my recent work on this topic, available here: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36814.57921

I would be very interested to read your thoughts.

I look forward to continuing this important dialogue.

Best regards,

Kelly L.McCue

B.A. Philosophy, University of California, Santa Cruz

Public Philosopher & AI Ethics Researcher

A research paper on this topic has been published, and you can review it for more details.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380319378_Intellectual_Laziness_and_Artificial_Intelligence

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/vanep20&div=16&id=&page=