'What if Superintelligent AI Goes Rogue?' Why We Need a New Approach to AI Safety
You will hear about "super intelligence," at an increasing rate over the coming months. Though it is the most advanced AI technology ever created, its definition is simple. Superintelligence is the point at which AI intelligence passes human intelligence in general cognitive and analytic functions.
As the world competes to create a true superintelligence, the United States government has begun removing previously implemented guardrails and regulation. The National Institute of Standards and Technology sent updated orders to the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute (AISI). They state to remove any mention of the phrases "AI safety," "responsible AI," and "AI fairness." In the wake of this change, Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash AI model increased in its likelihood to generate text that violates its safety guidelines in the areas of "text-to-text safety" and "image-to-text safety."
If Superintelligence Goes Rouge
We are nearing the Turing horizon, where machines can think and surpass human intelligence. Think about that for a moment, machines outsmarting and being cleverer than humans. We must consider all worst-case scenarios so we can plan and prepare to prevent that from ever occurring. If we leave superintelligence to its own devices, Stephen Hawking's prediction of it being the final invention of man could come true.
AI apps are pictured.
AI apps are pictured.
Getty Images
Imagine if any AI or superintelligence were to be coded and deployed with no moral guidelines. It would then act only in the interest of its end goal, no matter the damage it could do. Without these morals set and input by human engineers the AI would act with unmitigated biases.
If this AI was deployed with the purpose of maximizing profit on flights from London to New York, what would be the unintended consequences? Not selling tickets to anyone in a wheelchair? Only selling tickets to the people that weigh the least? Not selling to anyone that has food allergies or anxiety disorders? It would maximize profits without taking into account any other factors than who can pay the most, take up the least time in boarding and deplaning, and cause the least amount of fuel use.
Secondarily, what if we allow an AI superintelligence to be placed in charge of all government spending to maximize savings and cut expenses? Would it look to take spend away from people or entities that don't supply tax revenue? That could mean removing spending from public school meal programs for impoverished children, removing access to health care to people with developmental disabilities, or cutting Social Security payments to even the deficit. Guardrails and guidelines must be written and encoded by people to ensure no potential harm is done by AI.
A Modern Approach Is Needed for Modern Technology
The law is lagging behind technology globally. The European Union (EU) has ploughed ahead with the EU AI Act, which at a surface glance appears to be positive, but 90 percent of this iceberg lurks beneath the surface, potentially rife with danger. Its onerous regulations put every single EU company at a disadvantage globally with technological competitors. It offers little in the way of protections for marginalized groups and presents a lack of transparency in the fields of policing and immigration. Europe cannot continue on this path and expect to stay ahead of countries that are willing to win at any cost.
What needs to happen? AI needs to regulate AI. The inspection body cannot be humans. Using payment card industry (PCI) compliance as a model, there needs to be a global board of AI compliance that meets on a regular basis to discuss the most effective and safe ways AI is used and deployed. Those guidelines are then the basis for any company to have their software deemed AI Compliant (AIC).
The guidelines are written by humans, but enforced by AI itself. Humans need to write the configuration parameters for the AI program and the AI program itself needs to certify the technology meets all guidelines, or report back vulnerabilities and wait for a resubmission. Once all guidelines are met a technology will be passed as AIC. This technology cannot be spot checked like container ships coming to port—every single line of code must be examined. Humans cannot do this, AI must.
We are on the precipice of two equally possible futures. One is a world where bad actors globally are left to use AI as a rogue agent to destabilize the global economy and rig the world to their advantage. The other is one where commonsense compliance is demanded of any company wanting to sell technology by a global body of humans using AI as the tool to monitor and inspect all tech. This levels the field globally and ensures that those who win are those that are smartest, most ethical, and the ones that deserve to get ahead.
Chetan Dube is an AI pioneer and founder and CEO of Quant.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
This cryptocurrency is bitcoin's biggest challenger yet — and it just might take over your wallet
As originally envisaged, cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin were intended to provide an alternative to government-backed money in all its uses. Bitcoin's BTCUSD market capitalization has risen dramatically, but it remains a volatile speculative asset rather than a widely used exchange and payment method. Instead, stablecoins have emerged as a viable alternative to the traditional banking system for payments and remittances. These digital coins seek to maintain stable value by pegging to currencies like the U.S. dollar DXY, combining blockchain technology with reserve backing. My wife and I have $7,000 in pensions, $140,000 cash, plus $3,500 in Social Security. Can we afford to retire? Most American weddings are a lot more extravagant than the nuptials of Amazon's Jeff Bezos S&P 500 on pace for record high for first time in 4 months. What could push stocks higher from here? Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make. 'He doesn't seem to care': My secretive father, 81, added my name to a bank account. What about my mom? Stablecoins have a current market capitalization of about $250 billion. While modest relative to bitcoin, they are a growing channel for more accessible and efficient financial intermediation — but also raise concerns about monetary control, illicit transactions, user protection and financial stability. Moreover, a fundamental divide has emerged between the U.S. approach to the regulation of stablecoins, which encourages private-sector innovation, and the European approach, which prioritizes sovereign monetary and regulatory control. This divergence could profoundly reshape the global financial structure. The digital-finance ecosystem took shape with the launch of bitcoin in 2009, following the global financial crisis of 2008. Conceived as a decentralized alternative to government-issued currency, bitcoin uses blockchain technology — a transparent, tamper-resistant ledger that all users can view and verify — to facilitate peer-to-peer transactions without relying on banks or payment intermediaries. Its supply is capped through a resource-intensive mining process, and its price is entirely determined by the market. As of June 2025, bitcoin's market capitalization has reached roughly $2.1 trillion. Yet despite its scale, bitcoin remains a highly volatile asset that is slow and costly to exchange. It is still used primarily for speculative investment rather than as a medium for financial transactions. Stablecoins emerged to address bitcoin's usability problems by offering price stability and lower transaction costs. Stablecoins vary widely in design, risk and currency backing. They combine blockchain technology with reserve backing — typically in the form of low-risk, liquid assets — to maintain a stable value against a peg. They come in multiple forms, each with distinct risk profiles. The most widely used are U.S.-dollar-pegged, tokenized e-money stablecoins such as Tether USDTUSD, launched in 2014, and USD Coin USDCUSD, launched in 2018. These are backed 1:1 by cash and short-term U.S. Treasury securities. Other fiat-backed variants track currencies like the euro EURUSD (EURT, EURS), the yen USDJPY (JPYC) and several emerging-market currencies. More: A new plan might be taking shape in Washington to help manage explosive U.S. debt More complex types include asset-backed stablecoins (collateralized by commodities such as gold GC00), crypto-collateralized tokens (typically overcollateralized with digital assets by 150% or more), and algorithmic models, which attempt to maintain price stability through programmed supply adjustments rather than reserve backing. These design differences have direct implications for both price stability and regulatory risk. Stablecoins can generate returns, but they also involve risks. While stablecoins themselves do not pay interest, they can be deployed on crypto-lending platforms that offer returns through pooled lending mechanisms. However, these returns do carry risk — as highlighted starkly by the 2022 collapse of FTX, a major crypto exchange and lending platform. The stablecoin ecosystem is becoming increasingly competitive, with new crypto-focused issuers continuing to dominate market share. Established financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase JPM (with JPM Coin) and PayPal Holdings PYPL (with PYUSD) are also entering the space, signaling a convergence between traditional finance and blockchain-based payments. Central banks have also sought to compete in the digital space by issuing central-bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which are digital versions of national currencies based on electronic balances in a central ledger managed by the central bank. Yet these remain small compared to global holdings of crypto assets and stablecoin usage. Stablecoins now process more than $15 billion in daily transactions, compared to $2 billion to $4 billion for bitcoin. According to estimates by blockchain-analytics firms, around two-thirds of stablecoin transactions are associated with 'DeFi trading' — the trading of digital tokens, such as bitcoin and stablecoins, among holders of these coins, providing a predictable medium of exchange for trading and lending outside the banking system. But stablecoins are increasingly being used for 'real-world' purposes, particularly in emerging markets and underbanked regions. One growing use is international remittances, since stablecoins can significantly lower transfer costs from an average of 6.6% to under 3%. In high-inflation economies such as Argentina and Turkey, households are turning to U.S.-dollar-denominated stablecoins as a store of value to hedge against rapidly depreciating local currencies. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, stablecoins are helping to expand financial access, particularly as mobile wallets and digital infrastructure improve. These developments suggest that stablecoins are now functioning as practical financial tools in places where conventional financial services are costly or unreliable. The illicit use of stablecoins is rising, although it is still a relatively small share of overall usage. Stablecoins now account for approximately 63% of all illicit crypto-transaction volume, according to the Chainalysis 2025 Crypto Crime Report. This marks a shift away from bitcoin, which had previously been the dominant medium for crypto-based illicit activity. However, all crypto use for illicit activity accounts for less than 1% of all illicit financial activity, while only 0.14% of all crypto transactions were illicit, according to the Chainalysis report. The growing use of stablecoins is raising a complex set of policy concerns. Such concerns include the risk of undermining official currencies as more transactions migrate to stablecoin platforms, their potential use in illicit financial flows, gaps in safeguards for retail users, and unresolved questions surrounding the taxation of returns on crypto assets. Regulatory concerns center on financial-stability risks arising from the increasing role of stablecoins in financial intermediation. Central banks and regulators now consider large stablecoin issuers as systemically important institutions. For example, the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council's 2024 Annual Report noted that stablecoins 'continue to represent a potential risk to financial stability because they are acutely vulnerable to runs absent appropriate risk-management standards.' Concerns were highlighted by the May 2022 collapse of TerraUSD (which lost its dollar peg entirely) and the November 2022 failure of the FTX exchange, as well as brief depegging events affecting even major stablecoins like USDC under banking-sector stress in March 2023. Such events can have systemic implications given that stablecoins' integration with securities markets, custody chains and payment processors creates links to the core financial infrastructure. A related concern is that weak reserve management by stablecoin issuers or trading platforms could trigger collateral fire sales during mass redemptions, driving down the cost of assets and potentially destabilizing other parts of the financial markets. To date, progress in addressing these risks has been uneven, slowed by the absence of clear regulatory mandates over stablecoin activities and by diverging views among policymakers and agencies on the dangers and potential benefits of this rapidly evolving ecosystem. A transatlantic divergence in the regulation of stablecoins has widened. The United States, under the Trump administration, views stablecoins primarily as vehicles for innovation — tools to expand consumer choice and provide more efficient forms of financial intermediation, with the additional benefit that the rapidly rising use of dollar stablecoins helps to bolster dollar dominance globally. An executive order issued in January promotes stablecoins while explicitly prohibiting central-bank digital currencies in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which has just been passed by the U.S. Senate, proposes a light-touch but structured framework for stablecoins. The GENIUS Act mandates that stablecoins be backed 1:1 with safe, liquid assets and that issuers undergo regular audits and adhere to disclosure requirements. However, it carves out a separate regime for smaller issuers — those with less than $10 billion in outstanding stablecoins — allowing them to operate under state-level oversight. This has raised concerns about regulatory arbitrage and the potential for inconsistent standards across jurisdictions, and the potential for systemic risk from a growing multitude of alternative forms of digital money. Read: A new Senate bill indicates the government is taking stablecoins seriously Europe is taking the opposite approach, prioritizing tighter control. This is not just a technical difference from the United States; rather, it reflects competing visions about who should control the future of digital finance: private companies or government institutions. The European Central Bank's concerns focus on monetary sovereignty and the ability to implement effective monetary policy in a digital world. The ECB is accelerating the development of a digital euro to counter the growth of U.S. stablecoins, with pilot testing of a coordinated digital-payment platform expected by the end of 2025. At the same time, European regulations treat stablecoin issuers much like banks, with equivalent capital and operational rules. The E.U.'s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, adopted in 2024, imposes stricter rules than the U.S. GENIUS Act. It treats large stablecoin issuers like banks, requiring them to maintain strong capital buffers, establish clear liability frameworks and implement tight operational controls. MiCA also seeks to limit the spread of noneuro stablecoins, particularly dollar-denominated ones, by increasing compliance costs and making authorization more challenging for foreign issuers. Diverging approaches to regulating stablecoins risk fragmenting the global digital-finance landscape: a dollar-based stablecoin system in the U.S., a state-backed European digital-euro regime, and a mix of regional approaches elsewhere. These competing models risk disrupting the transmission of monetary policy, cross-border capital flows and regulatory coherence. Stablecoins are no longer a niche innovation; they are testing the foundations of modern monetary and payment systems. Their rapid expansion is reshaping financial-stability risks, straining regulatory boundaries and challenging the roles of central banks and supervisory authorities. Stablecoins must now be considered an integral part of the core financial architecture. As private digital tokens gain ground, existing oversight and payment-monitoring frameworks are struggling to keep pace. While regulators debate their response, the market — driven mainly by U.S.-based technology and market actors — is moving ahead. A coordinated international response to stablecoins is needed before their scale outpaces the capacity of any single jurisdiction to manage the risks they pose to monetary and financial stability. Udaibir Das is a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation America. He is also a visiting professor at the National Council of Applied Economic Research and a senior nonresident adviser at the Bank of England and the Centre for Social and Economic Progress. This commentary was originally published by Econofact — More: This investment turned $50,000 into $23 million in 10 years. It's still a buy. Plus: Why the plunging U.S. dollar is putting your spending and savings power at risk My job is offering me a payout. Should I take a $61,000 lump sum or $355 a month for life? How can I buy my niece a home in her name only — without alienating or upsetting her husband? There's an important market indicator that suggests investors remain wary. It's good news for stocks. I've been a stay-at-home mom for 10 years. Do I take a part-time job to spend more time with my kids or get a job for six figures? My friend asked me to chip in $1,600 for her son's prom-night limo. Has the world gone mad?
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
‘Big Balls' now working at Social Security Administration after departing DOGE: report
Edward Coristine, the 19-year-old nicknamed 'Big Balls' who was working in the Department of Government Efficiency, has landed a new role at the Social Security Administration. Coristine, who was hired by Elon Musk to join the DOGE team, recently left the White House but a Social Security Administration spokesperson confirmed he has since joined the agency as a special government employee. 'Edward Coristine joined the Social Security Administration this week as a special government employee,' spokesperson Stephen McGraw told WIRED. 'His work will be focused on improving the functionality of the Social Security website and advancing our mission of delivering more efficient service to the American people.' It was not immediately clear when Coristine started his new role. Sources told the outlet that Coristine 'looked nervous' and 'almost embarrassed' after being spotted at the agency's Woodlawn headquarters in Maryland this week. He was seen with DOGE engineer Aram Moghaddassi, another Musk hire who is working for X and Neuralink. 'Coristine looked nervous, almost embarrassed,' the source told WIRED. 'Aram was on the phone with someone … then said 'Yes I'm with him right now,' gesturing to Big Balls.'' Coristine's appointment at the agency follows a recent report that Musk and allies insisted on giving a 21-year-old former Silicon Valley intern sweeping access to personal data on hundreds of millions of Americans at the Social Security Administration. Musk ordered 21-year-old Akash Bobba, a former Palantir intern who'd been hired as a programmer for DOGE, be granted access to Social Security data without proper training so he could run his own analysis, The New York Times reported. When the acting commissioner, Michelle King, declined to do so, Musk had her fired and replaced with Leland Dudek. Dudek, brought back from a suspension on the DOGE team's recommendation, got Bobba the access. Coristine was first selected to work for the Tesla boss as a technologist, and received full-time staff status at the General Services Administration last month. Coristine became well known online and among Musk's immense fanbase publicly after he was paraded on Fox News alongside his boss. 'Who is Big Balls?' host Jesse Watters asked on his program, surrounded by DOGE members and supporters at a huge oval conference table. 'I am,' piped up 19-year-old DOGE staff member Edward Coristine. 'That should be obvious,' Musk quipped to laughter. Coristine claimed to have caught the eye of the world's richest man after simply changing his name on LinkedIn to 'Big Balls.' In addition to his brief stint as a government employee, the teenage high school graduate worked at Neuralink for several months and founded a company called LLC in 2021, according to WIRED. Speaking to Fox News, Coristine stated that while working in the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Technology, he used 'computer stuff' as he claimed to ferret out 'fraud and waste,' the old mantra of his former boss. With additional reporting from Mike Bedigan
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
'Big Balls' Is At The Social Security Administration
WASHINGTON ― Elon Musk's teenage protégé has found a new home in the federal government weeks after Musk's departure. Edward Coristine, the 19-year-old known as 'Big Balls,' has landed at the Social Security Administration following his stint in the General Services Administration as a minion of Musk's 'Department of Government Efficiency.' A spokesman for Social Security said Coristine joined the agency this week as a special government employee, meaning his term is limited to 130 days. 'His work will be focused on improving the functionality of the Social Security website and advancing our mission of delivering more efficient service to the American people,' Social Security spokesman Stephen McGraw said in an email. The Social Security Administration was the site of some of Musk's most controversial work while he led the DOGE initiative in the early months of President Donald Trump's second term. Musk falsely said, based on a misunderstanding of a Social Security database, that the agency sent out fraudulent benefits in the names of people who were more than 120 years old. Trump repeated the bogus story in a speech before Congress. Musk also claimed the agency was bombarded by fraudulent phone calls from criminals trying to steal people's benefits by switching their bank accounts. As a result, the agency announced it would disallow claimants from verifying their identities over the phone, instead requiring them to visit field offices. The agency backed off the phone service change in April amid an outcry from lawmakers. In February, according to the New York Times, members of the DOGE team also directed Social Security's acting director to cancel vital records contracts with Maine as retaliation for Gov. Janet Mills' refusal to follow Trump's orders on transgender athletes in girls' sports. Coristine, a former employee of Musk's Neuralink company, was a trusted DOGE insider during Musk's time as a White House advisor. Musk and Trump had a huge fight after the billionaire left; Coristine's continued presence in the government shows the falling out hasn't totally hampered the DOGE project.
