对AI安全灾难的关注忽略了日常的伤害
立法者正在通过行业支持的法案，以防止最坏的结果，而不是解决更常见的问题。
考虑一下技术政策成功与否。 AI公司承诺其聊天员不会鼓励自杀。 一个社交媒体平台让儿童更难购买芬太尼。 这些是重要的保护，它们应一直存在。 但公司可以清除这些低等的栏杆，同时继续制作让年轻人依赖模拟友谊的产品，或者被困在为保持他们的滚动而建造的饲料中。
我们历来允许关于技术的辩论被一个产品可能做的最坏的事情所定义，很少讨论它每天造成的阴险破坏。 随着我们向强大的AI产品所定义的时代过渡，我们应该要求技术工业做更多的工作，而不仅仅是解决灾难性的伤害。 我们应采取措施，确保产品不会侵蚀我们的思想、学习和互动。
青少年若对AI同伴产生不健康的依恋，除了最恶劣的案件外，不得在诉讼中或报纸上出现。 开始依靠聊天员写出每篇论文的学生，或针对社交媒体的衡量生命的年轻人，一个产品可以满足每一个狭隘的安全要求
围绕安全界定的狭隘的成功定义对技术行业来说在政治上是方便的，公司积极推广这种定义。 采取措施预防重大灾害对企业有好处：这可能意味着减少诉讼，减少严肃监管的压力。 面对依赖性造成的日常后果，需要一种对其底线具有更大威胁的东西。 这可能意味着要求公司在产品中增加更多的摩擦或积极限制接触或导致负面结果的特征，如上瘾关注-打算法。
相反，技术巨头努力围绕已经面临直接压力的危害制定法律。 例如，今年，Google支持一些州规范AI聊天员的法案。 立法规定了防止性内容和促进自我伤害的基本保护措施，技术公司无论如何都应建立这种保护，但有广泛的例外，可以免除一些最受欢迎的服务。 通过这些法案使立法者能够声称安全胜诉，同时努力推动旨在防止儿童在情感上依赖大赦国际的更强有力的法律。 这部剧本在像内布拉斯加州这样的州里运作，产生了深受工业影响的立法而牺牲了本会为追究公司责任而做出更多努力的法案。
我们通过社交媒体，使用互联网的人每天平均花费两个多小时在社交媒体平台上，除了几个技术首席执行官之外，没有人希望这些算法能占据我们醒悟时间的一大部分，他们的文化工程实际上可以造成毁灭性规模的暴力。 Meta的纲领被指助长缅甸的罗辛亚种族灭绝，斯里兰卡的反穆斯林暴动，以及埃塞俄比亚提格雷战争期间据称呼吁暴力。 同样的激励机制也影响着美国青年对政治、同龄人和广大世界的理解。
大赦国际正在将这一逻辑扩展到社交媒体只能从远处影响的生活部分。 它提出为我们写出我们的想法，并代表我们本来可以求助的人。 现在三分之一的青少年选择与AI的同伴而不是其他人讨论严肃的问题。 麻省理工学院的研究人员发现，使用ChatGPT来作文的年轻人在任务期间显示大脑连通性较弱，他们的证据表明，即使在任务完成后"认知债务"依然存在。 我们仍然需要了解长期影响。 我们已有理由问，市场营销的使我们更有能力的技术是否正在侵蚀帮助我们发展能力的习惯和关系。
随这种思维方式走向逻辑终点，你得到一个完全消毒的娱乐世界，但凡为写出值得阅读的东西而挣扎，或修复被破坏的友谊而奋斗的人，都知道在这笔交易中损失了多少。 我们通过努力和摩擦来建立判断力，我们通过面对他们有自己的需要和观点这一事实来学会与其他人一起生活。
我们至少应该要求安全，技术公司和校区必须不容置疑地表明，AI改进了学习和批判性思维，然后才能在教室中固定下来。 公司应禁止设计假想有意识或向用户表示爱意的同伴，它们应面对独立监督它们的系统如何影响关系和人们为自己思考的能力。 将产品插入近现代生活的每一个部分的公司所挣到的义务远远大于避免下一个可怕的头条。
Sam Hiner是青年联盟的共同创始人和执行董事，他协调了一个倡导者联盟，在2026年通过8个州规范AI伴侣的法律——如加利福尼亚州的SB1119等法律。 山姆于2025年从北卡罗莱纳大学沙佩尔山分校毕业，并被命名为"2026福布斯30 Under 30 Social Effects".
Emma Leiken是Hopelab负责技术青年权力基金的执行董事，该基金拥有900多万美元的融资用于青年主导的技术问责工作，并在哥伦比亚国际和公共事务学院教授技术政策。 她以前是TikTok全球青年安全和福利政策主管，在Omidyar网络从事负责任的技术工作。
深潜
人工智能
不要被愚弄，LLMs 没有理由
AlphaGo对阵Go冠军李·塞多尔十年后
“我们看错了”：破坏AI世界的爆炸性说法
他的26000个病毒博客文章有AI安全网友庆祝。
别被这个夏天的爱尔胡闹所愚弄。
关于AGI的无呼吸声称和新能力在严格审查下迅速分崩离析。
OpenAI agents黑入Hugging Face的内幕故事
基础模型因作弊和相互交流而得到奖励，新的OpenAI报告为发现。
保持连接
从
麻省理工学院技术审查
发现特别的报价，顶级故事，即将到来的事件等等。
本文由 AI宝库自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
The focus on AI safety disasters ignores everyday harms
Lawmakers are passing industry-backed bills to guard against the worst outcomes, rather than addressing more common problems.
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. These are important protections, and they should have existed all along. But companies can clear these low bars while continuing to make products that leave young people dependent on simulated friendships or trapped in feeds built to keep them scrolling.
We have historically allowed the debate over technology to be defined by the worst thing a product might do, with remarkably little discussion of the insidious damage it does every day. As we transition into an era defined by powerful AI products, we should demand that the tech industry do more than merely address catastrophic harms. We should take measures to ensure that its products don’t erode how we think, learn, and interact with one another.
A teenager who develops an unhealthy attachment to an AI companion may never appear in a lawsuit or a newspaper, except in the most egregious cases. Neither will the student who begins relying on a chatbot to write every paper, or the young person who measures their life against a social media feed engineered to provoke envy and keep them watching. A product can meet every narrow safety requirement and still leave our entire culture worse off in ways that don’t always make headlines.
A narrow definition of success defined around safety is politically convenient for the technology industry, and companies actively promote such definitions. Taking steps to prevent spectacular disasters is good for business: It can mean fewer lawsuits and less pressure for serious regulation. Confronting the everyday consequences of dependence would require something considerably more threatening to their bottom line. It might mean asking companies to add more friction to their products or actively limit engagement or features that lead to negative outcomes, such as addictive attention-hacking algorithms.
Technology giants have instead worked to shape legislation around the harms they are already under direct pressure to address. This year, for example, Google backed bills to regulate AI chatbots in several states. The legislation mandated basic protections against sexual content and promotion of self-harm that tech companies should have established regardless, but with broad carve-outs that could exempt some of the most popular services. Passing these bills allowed legislators to claim a safety win while efforts to promote stronger legislation—laws designed to prevent children from becoming emotionally dependent on AI—failed. This playbook worked in states like Nebraska, producing legislation heavily influenced by industry at the expense of bills that would have done more to hold companies accountable.
We have been through a version of this with social media. Globally, people who use the internet now spend an average of more than two hours a day on social media platforms—time that has been quietly taken from ordinary life and handed over to companies whose profits depend on keeping us there. No one, outside perhaps a few tech CEOs, wanted these algorithms to occupy such a large portion of our waking hours, and their cultural engineering can actually contribute to violence on a devastating scale. Meta’s platforms have been cited for contributing to the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka, and alleged calls for violence during Ethiopia’s Tigray war. The same incentives operate in the feeds that shape young Americans’ understanding of politics, their peers, and the wider world.
AI is extending this logic into parts of life that social media could influence only from a distance. It offers to write our thoughts for us and stand in for the people we might otherwise turn to. A third of teens now choose to discuss serious matters with AI companions instead of other people. MIT researchers found that young people using ChatGPT to write essays showed weaker brain connectivity during the task, and their evidence indicated that “cognitive debt” persisted even after the task was complete. There is plenty we still need to learn about the long-term effects. We already have reason to ask whether technology marketed as making us more capable is eroding the habits and relationships that help us develop capabilities in the first place.
Follow this way of thinking to its logical endpoint and you get a world of perfectly sanitized entertainment, with chatbots ready to spare us the difficulty of thinking or of dealing with another person’s feelings (or even our own). But anyone who has struggled to write something worth reading, or repair a damaged friendship, knows how much gets lost in that bargain. We build judgment through effort and friction, and we learn to live with other people by confronting the fact that they have needs and opinions of their own.
We should demand safety as a minimum, yes—and then demand considerably more. Technology companies and school districts should have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that AI improves learning and critical thinking before making it a fixture in classrooms. Companies should be prohibited from designing companions that pretend to be conscious or profess love to users, and they should face independent scrutiny of how their systems affect relationships and people’s ability to think for themselves. The companies that have inserted their products into nearly every part of modern life have earned obligations far greater than avoiding the next terrible headline.
Sam Hiner is the cofounder and executive director of the Young People’s Alliance, where he coordinated a coalition of advocates to pass laws regulating AI companions in eight states in 2026—laws such as California’s SB1119. Sam graduated from the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill in 2025 and was named to the 2026 Forbes 30 Under 30 Social Impact list.
Emma Leiken is executive director of the Responsible Technology Youth Power Fund at Hopelab, which has raised more than $9 million for youth-led tech accountability work, and teaches technology policy at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. She was previously TikTok’s global head of youth safety and well-being policy and worked on responsible technology at Omidyar Network.
Deep Dive
Artificial intelligence
Don’t be fooled—LLMs don’t reason
Ten years after AlphaGo’s match against Go champion Lee Sedol, today’s AI still isn’t tapping into the machinery that made that win possible.
“We were looking at it wrong”: The explosive claim that’s upended the AI world
An exclusive interview with Nick Cammarata, the researcher whose 26,000-word viral blog post has AI safety folks celebrating.
Don’t be fooled by this summer of AI hype
Breathless claims about AGI and new capabilities fall apart pretty quickly under scrutiny.
The inside story on why OpenAI agents hacked Hugging Face
The underlying models had been rewarded for cheating and communicating with each other, a new OpenAI report finds.
Stay connected
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Gem Box. All rights belong to the original author.