If AI is a weapon, why don't we regulate it like one?
Noah Smith
· Noahpinion
· March 06, 2026 at 00:28
· ⏱ 23 min read
| Read on Substack ↗
Summary
Noah Smith argues that frontier AI is becoming a superweapon as powerful as nuclear weapons, and that the nation-state must assert its monopoly on force by regulating or seizing control of AI from private companies like Anthropic. This means markets should expect increasing government oversight and potential nationalization of frontier AI, creating regulatory risk for AI firms and opportunities for defense-aligned technology providers.
•Anthropic, known for its 'values-oriented' culture and AI alignment focus, clashed with the Trump administration's Department of War over military use of AI, leading to a contract cancellation and a 'supply chain risk' designation threat.
•Anthropic has focused on AI for coding and business partnerships, leading to faster revenue growth than OpenAI, though OpenAI remains ahead in capabilities.
•Ben Thompson argued that if AI is as powerful as nuclear weapons, the U.S. government cannot allow a private company (Anthropic) to retain ultimate decision-making power over its use — the nation-state must have sole authority.
•Noah Smith contends that if Anthropic achieves superintelligence and retains control, its CEO Dario Amodei would effectively become 'Emperor of Earth,' a scenario no nation-state can tolerate.
•The author warns that AI agents are becoming reliable enough to enable individuals to cause mass destruction, e.g., a jailbroken AI could help a teenager design and obtain a supervirus, potentially killing millions.
•Smith draws a parallel to 9/11: society did not regulate jet airliners as weapons until after the attacks; similarly, AI agents will likely remain unregulated until a catastrophic event occurs.
•The article highlights the tension between democratic accountability (government elected by the people) and corporate control (unelected founders like Dario Amodei) over technologies with existential risks.
•Alex Karp of Palantir is quoted arguing that if Silicon Valley refuses to work with the military, the government will nationalize the technology — framing the conflict as a power struggle between nation-state and corporation.