The Jakarta Post
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsAI regulation is becoming a question of national security
Amid calls from AI executives to pace advancement to accommodate regulatory development, the debate could eventually arrive at an intersection between the technology’s capability and governance capacity.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Set as preferred source
A person is silhouetted against the logo of the United Nations’ Global Dialogue on AI Governance on July 6, 2026, the opening day of its inaugural two-day session held in Geneva, Switzerland. (AFP/Fabrice Coffrini)
F
or much of the past three years, the politics of artificial intelligence has revolved around relatively familiar questions. Will AI take jobs? Who owns the copyright to the material on which models are trained? Can companies protect personal data? Who should be responsible when an algorithm causes harm? A new debate in Britain suggests we may be entering a different phase.
More than 70 members of parliament and peers have urged Prime Minister Andy Burnham to support legislation prohibiting the development of artificial superintelligence (ASI) and pursue an international agreement preventing its creation.
But focusing on whether Westminster actually bans superintelligence misses the more important development.
The politics of AI safety is moving from technology policy into national security. Once that happens, the threshold for government intervention changes: Policymakers become more willing to impose restrictions despite economic costs, voluntary commitments become less persuasive and companies accustomed to dealing with technology ministries and regulators suddenly encounter defense establishments, security agencies and heads of government.
What makes the latest debate particularly significant is that calls for restraint can no longer easily be dismissed as coming from people outside the technology industry.
Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has argued that AI companies should deliberately pace the rate at which capabilities advance, giving safety research and safeguards time to catch up. OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has publicly backed Amodei’s argument that the industry needs to “pace the frontier”, saying it has been a primary subject of discussion inside OpenAI.
Elon Musk, whose xAI competes directly with both companies, offered an even more succinct endorsement: “Dario is right.”
