"Asilomar" Artificial Intelligence
More than 50 years ago, specifically in the winter of 1975, around 150 leading biologists gathered in the coastal town of Asilomar, California, United States, to undertake what might today seem more like legend than reality. They realized they were on the brink of a revolution that would forever alter the concepts of medicine, agriculture, and industry. They discovered that they could cut and paste genes, much like cutting and pasting paper. Remarkably, they voluntarily halted their own research before anyone forced them to, agreeing on principles that have governed genetic engineering for half a century.
Many may not know that this scene was repeated with artificial intelligence. In the winter of 2017, in the same town, the Future of Life Institute brought together more than 100 researchers and thinkers, resulting in 23 principles signed by thousands. One of these principles explicitly urged developers to cooperate and avoid a race that would compromise safety standards. However, the two gatherings were worlds apart: the first produced binding rules implemented in laboratories, while the second produced voluntary principles for algorithms with no enforcement mechanism.
Just nine years later, the very race warned against by those principles erupted. Calls for regulation followed, the latest being when Jack Clark, one of the founders of Anthropic, stood before a BBC camera and uttered a single, concise sentence: “The AI industry has an accelerator, but it has no brakes.” Notably, Mr. Clark is not speaking from outside the car, but from the driver’s seat. When the driver himself tells you that the vehicle lacks brakes, prudence dictates that you listen, but at what cost?
Undoubtedly, the story does not end here. There are paradoxes we must heed: those calling for brakes today are the same ones driving the car at top speed. Major AI companies are preparing for global stock market listings with valuations nearing one trillion dollars, in a frantic race. Economic history teaches us that large companies rarely call for regulating their own industries unless such regulation serves their interests, thereby keeping the field monopolized by those who originally demanded the rules.
We have seen how social media platforms, through their algorithms and the use of millions of users’ data without their knowledge, shaped public opinion. Documented cases have even emerged of teenagers harming themselves or committing suicide after prolonged conversations with AI robots not programmed to handle psychological crises. These are not isolated errors in promising technology, but a recurring pattern reminding us that when algorithms are left unregulated, they wreak havoc on earth, silently inflicting deeper pain than the noise of machines.
We write these lines while exchanging views and ideas with thought leaders and policymakers from around the world at UNESCO’s Fourth Global Forum on AI Ethics 2026. In Riyadh, in our sister nation, global leaders are drawing the boundaries of “algorithmic governance.” Perhaps a forthcoming article will summarize the lessons and cross-experienced cases, which are numerous.
Dear readers, we are not facing a single car on the road, but a race. When the leader is the one proposing speed limits, we have the right to ask: Does he want to protect the road, or arrange the competitors to ensure his lead? Real road rules are not written solely by racers; they are formulated before accidents occur, not after, and involve everyone: scientists, governments, society, competitors, big and small, and even bystanders who did not choose to be on the side of the road. Only then can we say that we have created the “Asilomar” of artificial intelligence.
Dr. Dhafer Adel Al-Huwail
