Essay says AI safety rules miss everyday harms
Original title: The focus on AI safety disasters ignores everyday harms
The authors want classroom proof of learning gains and bans on companions that claim consciousness or profess love.
A MIT Technology Review essay by Sam Hiner and Emma Leiken argues that AI policy focused on catastrophic harms lets companies avoid limits on everyday dependence, attention design and weaker thinking. They cite Google-backed state chatbot bills, industry-influenced legislation in Nebraska, and failed efforts to stop children becoming emotionally dependent on AI. They also cite a claim that a third of teens discuss serious matters with AI companions and an MIT study of weaker brain connectivity when young people used ChatGPT to write essays.
Unconfirmed: The teen-companion share and learning effects are presented as the authors' cited findings, not independently verified here.
- Hiner says his coalition helped pass AI companion laws in eight states in 2026, including California SB1119.
- The essay says Google-backed bills had carve-outs that could exempt popular services.
- It says internet users spend more than two hours a day on social media on average.
- Organizations
- Young People's AllianceMIT
- Countries
- United States
- AI models
- ChatGPT
From the original article
4 min read at technologyreview.com
Consider what passes for success in technology policy. An AI company promises that its chatbot will not encourage suicide. A social media platform makes it more difficult for children to buy fentanyl.
By Sam Hiner, Emma Leiken · technologyreview.com
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.