Trump Eyes AI Czar Candidates

Donald Trump is reportedly mulling over a few candidates for a position dubbed “AI czar.” This role, ideally at the Cabinet level, would oversee the burgeoning AI industry, and he has even referred to this initiative as the “AI Force,” perhaps echoing the intent behind Space Force.

Details about this prospective position are scant, and so far, those speculated to be in the running don’t seem particularly enthusiastic about the idea.

One might ponder whether we truly need someone wielding such immense power to govern AI. Maybe it’s more about having a figure with the wisdom of a saint to guide us.

There are many compelling reasons for this perspective.

Not all aspects of our society are driven by computers. Various key elements in America still require distinct, focused attention. For instance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is reportedly no longer in consideration given the significance of his current responsibilities. This reasoning could similarly apply to White House science and technology adviser Michael Kratsios and other potential candidates.

Moreover, the fate of Czar Nicholas II, who faced a grim end at the hands of communists, illustrates how a czar, if given too much authority, can quickly become a target of blame or a tragic casualty.

Introducing a title like AI czar illuminates momentous possibilities.

Recent polls reveal that many Americans feel democracy is floundering. Interestingly, a significant segment of the population seems to view this as not entirely negative.

About two-thirds of respondents still hold that a democratically elected government is crucial to national identity, which marks a considerable drop from 80% just five years prior. Almost half of the younger Americans surveyed believe democracy isn’t pivotal to the identity of the country or view it as unimportant altogether.

That said, numerous Americans are deeply committed to democratic principles. This group includes those who resonate with Winston Churchill’s observation that democracy is the “worst form of government, except for all the others.”

It’s hard to imagine a departure from this system without also discarding the Constitution and rejecting the Declaration of Independence.

Despite how far we may have drifted over 250 years since these foundational documents, the rights to vote and the core freedoms safeguarded by the Bill of Rights continue to enjoy widespread backing. While some younger citizens express a willingness to amend the Constitution, the idea of a national convention to pursue such changes remains largely unpopular.

Then there’s the practical issue: Americans are far from unified on who should govern them—or even what a post-democratic America should resemble.

For many who contemplate stepping away from democracy, or believe it’s beyond repair, the thought of regime change brings to mind an alarming image of a devastating civil war as a possible alternative.

Now consider the implications of AI.

Integrating AI into governance, especially under the oversight of a designated czar, dramatically sharpens our fundamental questions about the structure of our society.

There’s a palpable anxiety among many Americans regarding the rapid pace of AI development. Yet, paradoxically, many perceive the deterioration we’ve witnessed over the last decade-plus as an unsatisfactory alternative to this acceleration.

Still, those advocating for a more cautious approach or a complete reversal of AI integration do not seem to represent a popular majority.

Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Greg Casar have introduced legislation to ban artificial superintelligence and put a temporary halt on advanced AI research until a new federal regulator can formulate safety guidelines. They’re also calling for hefty penalties for violations.

No matter how one views the underlying risks, such measures are likely to provoke a backlash against centralized political control over technological progression, especially in a post-democratic context.

Additionally, segments of the AI safety community often evoke discomfort for average citizens for various reasons: from their niche ethical discussions to a bizarre insistence on equating the welfare of hypothetical future creatures with human lives.

For these reasons, some on the right imagine a modern-day Caesar who could restore order and revive the nation.

Others foresee a less orchestrated scenario in which systemic failure leads to a figure emerging from chaos to take decisive control.

The nuance is significant here.

It’s critical to note, as seen in historical contexts, that concentrated power doesn’t guarantee wise or benevolent governance. Many powerful rulers left their nations in worse states than before.

Yet, historical figures like Constantine and Nicholas II remind us that leaders with immense authority can indeed evolve into figures of profound moral significance.

Some might argue that calling someone a saint, especially a ruler, is contentious at best.

Exploring this concept leads us to a deeper complexity: truly virtuous rulers—and virtuous individuals—aren’t merely evaluated by their capacity to deliver worldly happiness or justice.

What’s regarded as divine justice or happiness diverges significantly from human standards. The events surrounding Christ’s trial in Jerusalem should caution anyone hoping for simple earthly resolutions from godly leaders.

That brings us to a rather counterintuitive notion about something as formidable as AI.

Perhaps instead of searching for a powerful czar to manage it, we actually need someone imbued with the wisdom of a saint to guide our relationship with this technology.