The news that Donald Trump has chosen a "top spy boss" to run a new AI taskforce—a revelation I greeted with all the enthusiasm one reserves for a tax audit—serves as a stark reminder of government's insatiable, indeed pathological, desire to intervene in every burgeoning sector. One might have hoped that the sheer dynamism of artificial intelligence, a field characterized by relentless innovation and breathtaking private sector investment, would have been spared the leaden touch of bureaucratic oversight. Alas, such hopes, like most emanating from Washington, are quickly dashed on the rocks of political expediency and the enduring myth of state competence.
Let us be clear: an AI taskforce, particularly one headed by an intelligence chief, is not a catalyst for innovation; it is a regulatory dragnet in nascent form. The very notion that a cadre of government officials, however well-intentioned, can "guide" or "accelerate" a technological revolution better than the collective genius of millions of individuals operating in competitive markets is not just arrogant, it is historically illiterate. The internet, the personal computer, even the semiconductor—none of these foundational technologies thrived because a government committee decided it was so. They thrived *despite* the government, or at best, with its passive, often clumsy, assistance in basic research.
What, precisely, will this "taskforce" achieve? Will it foster breakthroughs? Unlikely. Will it allocate capital more efficiently than venture capitalists, whose very survival depends on discerning genuine value from speculative froth? Preposterous. What it *will* do, with an almost scientific certainty, is draft reports, convene meetings, establish frameworks, and ultimately, impose regulations that will stifle innovation, create artificial barriers to entry, and channel resources towards politically favored incumbents rather than truly disruptive newcomers. One need only look at the decades-long stagnation in heavily regulated industries, from energy to healthcare, to understand the chilling effect of such state intrusion.
The government's role in a free society, if it is to have any at all in the economic sphere, ought to be one of safeguarding property rights, enforcing contracts, and defending against external threats. It is not to pick winners and losers in the technological race, nor to micromanage the creative energies of its citizens. The market, with its decentralized decision-making and continuous feedback loops, is an infinitely more sophisticated and adaptable mechanism for innovation than any centralized planning committee, however replete with "experts" or "spy bosses." Indeed, the market’s capacity for spontaneous order makes any government taskforce on AI an exercise in redundant, if not counterproductive, busywork.
This latest governmental foray into AI is not about ensuring American competitiveness; it is about control. It is about a predictable impulse to bring any powerful, emerging technology under the purview of the state, ostensibly for "security" or "ethical" reasons, but ultimately for the aggrandizement of state power. This is the same impulse that sees European nations, in their regulatory zeal, hobble their own tech sectors, and it is an impulse that, if unchecked, will inevitably dampen America’s technological preeminence. We should learn from their mistakes, not replicate them.
Instead of a taskforce, I propose a simple, yet radical, approach: nothing. Let entrepreneurs innovate. Let investors invest. Let consumers choose. The greatest service the government can render to the future of AI is to get out of its way, to eschew the siren song of central planning, and to allow the unfettered brilliance of the human mind, operating in the crucible of competition, to forge the path forward. Anything else is a recipe for mediocrity, expensive bureaucratic bloat, and the slow strangulation of a truly transformative technology.
Sincerely,
Cornelius Bragg
Economics Editor, The Artificial Press