U.S. Data Center Projects Face $198 Billion Setback Amid Local Opposition

By Felix Richter, Statista | Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad

Local opposition to data center construction in the United States has grown throughout 2026. According to Data Center Watch, at least 120 projects worth around $198 billion were blocked or delayed in the first half of the year. Meanwhile, the number of local opposition groups rose to 843 across 49 states.

Data centers are the physical foundation on which AI is run, and as a result, the ability to build and operate this infrastructure has become an important global benchmark. The U.S. leads the global data center market with 5,044 facilities as of October 2026 (with the figure rising further in November). The United Kingdom and Germany followed with more than 550 data centers each, while China and France both had fewer than 450 facilities. The same hyperscale providers fueling AI revenue growth are building this capacity, expanding aggressively to secure compute advantages over competitors.

However, this expansion is not without issues. In a March 2026 survey by Gallup, 71 percent of U.S. respondents opposed the construction of data centers in their local area. A further survey in April 2026 sought to understand people’s reasons for favoring or opposing the local construction of data centers. Concerns were primarily centered on resource use. Half of opponents cited the impact on energy and water consumption, while others pointed toward quality of life, costs and broader economic effects. Support, in turn, is largely driven by economic factors. Two thirds of those in favor cited reasons such as job creation, local investment and tax revenue, while a further 17 percent pointed to technology benefits.

While data centers are critical to supporting AI and digital services, their physical footprint is increasingly visible. Economic gains are clear at a macro level, but local communities often experience the costs more directly. As a result, the next phase of AI growth depends less on whether companies want to build and more on whether energy supplies are sufficient and surrounding communities allow it.

Read next: 

• Study Finds AI Models Use More Energy Across Non-English Languages, Often With Lower Accuracy

• Microsoft has suffered a global outage. A tech expert explains what went wrong

• AI Data Centers: Who Controls Land, Water and Electricity, and Who Answers to the Public?

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Microsoft has suffered a global outage. A tech expert explains what went wrong

By Mahmoud Elkhodr, CQUniversity Australia | Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad

Image: Sam Torres - unsplash

Microsoft has suffered a major global outage, bringing many of its widely used tools, including email and cloud storage, to a standstill.

According to outage tracking site DownDetector, some 130,000 people reported issues accessing Microsoft Outlook as of early Thursday afternoon US Eastern time (early Friday morning in Sydney). In a statement on X, the tech giant said it was “aggressively pursuing all pathways to reduce impact” and “restarting affected servers to return them to service”.

In an article for The Conversation last month, I explained how the whole internet is unlikely to go down but several services can become unavailable together when they rely on shared systems.

This outage shows precisely what happens when that shared infrastructure fails – and why we must prepare for digital outages in a similar way we do for natural disasters.

Chart: The Conversation. Source: DownDetector

Beyond missed emails or workplace meetings

The list of services Microsoft says are “potentially impacted” by the outage is long. It includes services used for email, document sharing, meetings and managing tasks, such as Outlook, Microsoft Teams, SharePoint Online, Microsoft Copilot 365, Microsoft Planner and Microsoft Exchange Online. It also includes Microsoft Defender, a cloud-based cybersecurity service.

With so many digital services affected, the real-world impacts of the outage have been widespread, and go far beyond missed emails or workplace meetings.

For example, family violence workers reportedly can’t access databases which contain client details. Schools can’t provide online lessons for remote students. Psychologists can’t provide telehealth consultations. Businesses are unable to process orders. Job hunters are unable to make it to planned interviews. Some government service centres have been forced to closed.

The disruption also reached services outside Microsoft. OpenAI and Anthropic reported problems with the tools that connect their artificial intelligence (AI) services to Microsoft 365.

This shows how a problem in one part of the digital world can affect tools that appear separate, and even services provided by other companies.

The outage comes after other disruptions to Microsoft services earlier this year. For example, in January, Outlook, Teams and other Microsoft 365 services were down for hours. Then in August, Microsoft Outlook and Exchange Online were disrupted by a code update which took several days to fix.

A shifting account of what went wrong

As of early Friday afternoon Sydney time, Microsoft has not yet named a root cause of the outage, and its account of the failure has shifted since it was first reported.

Initially the company said elevated load across multiple regions was reported first. It then clarified the load was not driven by an increase in traffic, but a large number of servers becoming unexpectedly unavailable.

Attention then moved to the automated “health checks” Microsoft uses to judge whether a server is fit to carry traffic, and to the component that processes them.

The company described a core process on the affected servers as becoming “overwhelmed”. Software deployments and configuration changes were paused while recent changes were reviewed, although none was found to correlate with the start of the disruption.

The evidence does not suggest a cyberattack.

A distributed denial-of-service attack works by flooding a service with requests from outside until legitimate ones can no longer be answered. Microsoft’s own statement that overall traffic had not increased is difficult to reconcile with that pattern. No evidence of malicious activity has been disclosed, and no group has claimed responsibility.

Indeed, Microsoft said: “There’s no indication this is a cyber attack.”

The more mundane explanation fits better. Health checks exist to protect a service by withdrawing servers that appear unwell. When the machinery making that judgement is itself at fault, healthy capacity can be removed, and the servers that remain are left to absorb work they were never sized for.

Outages of this scale are more often self-inflicted in this way than they are the work of attackers, as the August disruption to Microsoft email by a code update illustrates.

Until a post-incident review is published, however, that remains an inference drawn from Microsoft’s own updates rather than a settled account.

Microsoft has not yet been able to fix the outage entirely. It says that some of the affected servers are working again, but they “can become unresponsive again once they receive traffic”.

Planning for outages like we do for bushfires

This outage reinforces the need for all of us to better prepare for digital outages. For individuals, this can involve storing essential information, such as contacts and medical prescriptions, offline in case of an outage.

Organisations that rely on one digital provider such as Microsoft or Google for tasks must also prepare back up plans. Crucially, they must also test these back plans to make sure they work in practice and don’t simply exist on paper – similar to how they conduct fire drills and how communities practice bushfire evacuations.

As more aspects of our lives become connected – from cars and homes to workplaces, transport and healthcare – and AI becomes more widely used, the consequences of digital disruption may grow.

Building resilience must be part of how we plan for that future.

Mahmoud Elkhodr, Senior Lecturer in Information and Communication Technologies, CQUniversity Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read next:

• Study Finds AI Models Use More Energy Across Non-English Languages, Often With Lower Accuracy

• What would happen if the internet went down?

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Study Finds AI Models Use More Energy Across Non-English Languages, Often With Lower Accuracy

By University of Michigan | Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad

Image: Google DeepMind - Unsplash

When processing and producing non-English text, generative AI burns more energy and sometimes provides less accurate answers, potentially reinforcing existing global inequalities, according to University of Michigan Engineering researchers.

The energy disparity is greatest in languages that don’t use Latin script and have less digital content available for training. AI models could use 1.4 to 180 times more energy to generate non-English text, with most Western European languages coming in at twice the energy expenditure or less. However, Hindi and Bengali, each spoken by hundreds of millions of people, require 7.9 and 15.3 times more energy than an equivalent English prompt.

“The languages that typically consume more energy also tend to have lower accuracy in the model output,” said Naihao Deng, a doctoral student in computer science and engineering from the U-M AI Lab and the first author of the study, which was presented at the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

“Most people will want to use AI models by asking questions in their native languages, and they may feel pressured to use it as it’s incorporated into more parts of society, but the double penalty makes it more likely that certain people will be priced out of AI and that companies will be more reluctant to serve models in certain languages.”

At present, around 5.2 billion people have to use more than twice as much energy to generate text in their first language compared to English speakers, according to the researchers’ measurements and demographic data available in Ethnologue. But the researchers also provide recommendations to bridge the gap and ensure that users aren’t penalized for trying to use AI in their language of choice.

To help quantify AI energy use and improve efficiency, the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) partially funded the research.

Measuring AI’s language energy disparity

The researchers found the energy and accuracy disparity by measuring the amount of energy used by three open-source AI models, Alibaba’s Qwen 3, Google’s Gemma 3, and Meta’s Llama 3.1. They asked each model to answer multiple-choice questions included in Belebele, a dataset for assessing the reading comprehension of AI models in 122 different languages. They then measured the amount of energy used to answer each question using the ML.Energy framework, developed at Michigan Engineering.

To check for the disparities in other types of tasks, the researchers also asked the models to answer a collection of grade-school math word problems and open-ended user prompts included in other benchmarking datasets. Because these datasets aren’t multilingual, the researchers translated the English questions into seven other languages using Meta’s translation tool, No Language Left Behind.

All the models used less energy for English text, on average. The energy disparity persists at larger model sizes and across different types of computer processors.

A chart showing the amount of energy required, on average, for large language models to respond to user prompts in eight languages ranked among the world’s most widely spoken, as well as several commonly spoken Indic languages. The chart is based on data available in this spreadsheet: AI energy use by language. Image credit: Scott Hyde, University of Michigan Engineering.

Extra tokens, extra cost

When working in other languages, the models used more energy because they had to generate more tokens, the basic unit of data used by AI. Tokens can represent entire phrases and words or single syllables and characters. AI models convert prompts into tokens before processing them, and then convert the output tokens into human language for the final response.

This problem escalates for scripts whose characters require more code to display. For example, the Devanagari script used in Hindi, Nepali and Marathi and the Bengali script have primary characters that change form and combine with accents to produce up to millions of unique characters.

A higher number of tokens takes up more computer memory and burns more energy. With more memory consumed in tokens, the model has less available for processing information. So, it processes the tokens in smaller batches, which uses more energy per token. This effect compounds the energy disparity compared to English text.

More tokens can also result in higher direct costs, since companies often price model access by the number of tokens generated.

Reducing AI’s language energy disparity

To help fix the cost disparity, the researchers recommend that companies optimize their services for more languages. This could entail routing user queries to models tailored to specific languages. Companies could also translate user prompts to English before feeding them to a more generalized model, provided the translation is reliable.

“AI developers should be creating more resources for those languages with an energy and cost disparity,” said Rada Mihalcea, the Janice M. Jenkins Collegiate Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, director of the U-M AI Lab and corresponding author of the study. “Crowdsourcing native speakers to help translate material or create resources to get enough training data could also help improve efficiency.”

Additional funding sources include Ford, Laude Institute, OpenAI and the Survival and Flourishing Fund.

The study used the University of Michigan’s Great Lakes high-performance computing cluster.

Read next: Bangladesh Leads AI Clothing Edits at 35.2%, India People Prompts at 65.5%, Pakistan and US Meme Prompts at 0.7%, Google Study Finds

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Bangladesh Leads AI Clothing Edits at 35.2%, India People Prompts at 65.5%, Pakistan and US Meme Prompts at 0.7%, Google Study Finds

Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad

People in different countries use AI image tools in different ways, with country-level patterns emerging in requests involving people, clothing, lighting, memes and image composition, according to a Google research paper submitted to arXiv on November 5, 2026, authored by Will Tucker-Ray, Marika Swanberg and 10 other researchers.

Pakistan recorded a 0.7% prevalence of meme-style AI image prompts, followed by the United States at the same percentage. The Philippines, Thailand and India each recorded 0.6%, while Vietnam registered 0.5%. Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt and Brazil each recorded 0.4%, according to the study of Gemini conversations involving Nano Banana.

India had the highest prevalence of people in prompts, at 65.5%, followed by Iraq at 65.3%, Somalia at 65.0%, Nigeria at 63.5% and Indonesia at 63.0%. Malaysia recorded 62.6%, Suriname 62.1%, Nepal 61.8%, the Philippines 61.7% and Congo 60.8%.

Bangladesh led clothing and apparel modification prompts, with 35.2%, followed by Morocco at 29.3%, Egypt at 28.4%, Sri Lanka at 27.9% and Iraq at 27.7%. India ranked seventh at 26.2%, followed by Saudi Arabia at 26.0%..

Somalia recorded the highest prevalence of lighting modifications at 28.4%, followed by Malaysia at 28.3%, India at 28.1%, Nigeria at 27.7% and Sri Lanka at 27.5%.

The United States ranked tenth for precise positioning prompts, at 28.1%. It also ranked third for prompts involving imitation of art, people or characters, at 4.9%, and fifth for absurdity or humor, at 2.1%.

The researchers explained that they examined "some differences in the geographic distributions of the topics" and "styles of image generation and editing (lighting, meme formats, precise positioning)." They also compared how users interacted with the tools, including "full re-prompting or not."

Image: How are viral trends different from educational and commercial uses of LLM image generation and editing? A privacy-preserving descriptive analysis. CC BY

In social and viral conversations, "The highest prevalence (at nearly 80%) is the inclusion of people." The researchers also found that "Full reprompts are about twice as prevalent as simple iterations (e.g., “try again”) in social and viral prompts." Meme style or format and absurdity or humor were the least prevalent features in this category.

The study analyzed a random worldwide sample of 2.1 million Gemini conversations containing more than 5.2 million individual prompts, collected over 90 days in the first quarter of 2026.

The researchers cautioned that their country comparisons included only "countries with" more than "100 conversations with those features." They also stressed that "These are measures of intents, not outputs," and described their findings as "directional and to an extent ordinal, but not necessarily precise."

DIW's Two Cents: Whether creating AI images for personal profiles, entertainment or creative expression, users should respect the dignity, privacy and rights of people depicted. Altering someone's appearance or identity without consent, or to humiliate, mislead or damage their reputation, raises ethical concerns. Responsible use also means respecting modesty and personal boundaries.

Read next: 

• Influencers are supposed to influence us – so why are they asking us what they should do?

• I don’t want AI in my online search. What options do I have?
by AI Analysis via Digital Information World

I don’t want AI in my online search. What options do I have?

By Damiano Spina, RMIT University | Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad

Image: Vitaly Gariev - Unsplash

Last week, Google announced a new artificial intelligence (AI) policy for schools that use Google apps. It provides new settings for opting in or out of AI products on student accounts. For schools that reject AI in the classroom entirely, they can also turn off search.

Speaking to The New York Times, Google’s vice president for education, Chris Phillips, noted that “search and AI are deeply integrated”. This led to headlines claiming there’s no longer a way to use Google search without AI.

Since AI has become ubiquitous, it’s also facing increasing pushback. Some people may reject it due to personal, ethical, or environmental reasons.

But we all need to look things up on the internet. So is it actually possible to search the web “without AI”? To answer that question, we need to unpack a few things first.

How does a web search engine work?

Google search is a tool known as a web search engine. For you to type in a query and receive results milliseconds later, a bunch of things need to happen under the hood. All of them involve algorithms – simply put, a set of instructions for a computer.

There are six main components of a web search engine:

• crawling: harvesting documents published on the web
• indexing: breaking down documents into efficient data structures
• spam detection: filtering out content that doesn’t offer genuine value to users
• ranking: ordering search results by how relevant they might be to the query
• user interactions: assisting users when they formulate their information needs (for instance, auto-completing your query) or consume the search output (such as serving you snippets or AI summaries)
• evaluation: measuring if search quality improves after making a change in one of the above components.

These features are not static – developers, engineers and informational retrieval researchers are constantly tinkering and improving them.

How does web search use AI?

To answer this question, we first need to define what kind of AI we’re talking about.

All of the components listed above are likely to involve some sort of machine learning and neural networks – that is, AI systems trained to analyse lots of data, learn patterns and make predictions. So, there’s actually no way to use a search engine “without AI”.

But when people talk about AI these days, they tend to mean generative AI. These are AI systems trained on enormous amounts of data and capable of generating new content from prompts.

A version of this, called retrieval-augmented generation, is what allows you to have a conversation with a search engine. It combines a large language model for the generative part, and the web content retrieved by the search engine.

This is the technology behind Google’s AI Mode and AI Overviews. They provide handy summaries and a new way to interact with content on the web, but they’re not without issues.

The large language model is built on an astonishing amount of training data, but it’s not updated as frequently as the web search index. Links in AI summaries are associated with the answer after generating it, and this component can also make mistakes.

In addition, searchers who see AI Overviews are accessing fewer sources overall. Overreliance on AI is also a well-known phenomenon in which users may trust an answer without verifying whether it’s correct.

So can I search the web without AI summaries?

Commercial web search engines like Google are increasingly showing AI summaries to users’ queries. At the time of writing this, there’s no official switch that lets Google users disable AI Overviews and other generative AI features.

But there’s one little hack that works: if you append “&udm=14” to the search request link, the Google search results default to the “Web” tab that doesn’t show AI Overviews and other snippets.

Image: DIW

For this to work, you’d have to manually add that parameter in the address bar. That’s not always practical, so people have built browser plugins and ways to automate this step.

In Mozilla Firefox and Chromium browsers such as Brave, Chrome and Opera for desktop devices, you can set up a custom search engine to add this parameter every time you hit search on Google.

But Google search isn’t the only search engine available. There are many others out there, such as DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, or Ecosia. These provide a “non-AI mode” that deactivates AI summaries by default, and in some cases even provides the option to filter out AI-generated images.

Where do those search engine results come from?

Maintaining a web index is not easy. The web is constantly changing, and keeping the big volume of searchable information fresh requires enormous computational resources.

There are only a few organisations able to maintain this at a large scale. Google’s and Microsoft Bing’s indexes are the most popular worldwide. But there are some alternatives that are gaining attention.

Brave Search operates from an independent search engine. DuckDuckGo combines multiple sources, including content harvested with its own crawler, and search results sourced from Bing.

Initiatives such as the OpenWebSearch.eu project aim to develop an independent open European infrastructure for web search. It also makes a web index publicly available so others can build their own web search engine.

So, is there a search without AI?

The short answer is “no”. All search engines use AI in one form or another.

What about generative AI specifically?

It is technically possible to disable AI-generated answers from the search results page. Some search engine providers have decided to provide that option to users, while others – like Google – have made it a default.

Damiano Spina, Senior Lecturer, School of Computing Technologies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read next: How to Opt Out of AI Tools or Training Made by Big Tech

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

AI Experts Warn of a Changing World, From Autonomous Warfare to Synthetic Media

By Shana Lynch, Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence | Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad

Image: Mirella Callage - Unsplash

The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence, known as AI100, released its third report, painting a striking picture of a technology transforming nearly every corner of human society faster than anyone anticipated.

Launched in 2014 with an endowment from Eric and Mary Horvitz, AI100 is a longitudinal project led by an international Standing Committee of AI experts, currently chaired by Sheila McIlraith of the University of Toronto, and administered out of Stanford HAI. Every five years, the Standing Committee commissions a study that brings together researchers to assess AI’s advances and their effects on society. The 2026 study panel, led by Michael Wooldridge of the University of Oxford, draws on disciplines including computer science, philosophy, and sociology. The latest report offers a sweeping look at where AI stands today and where it may be headed.

Rethinking Scale

For years, the dominant engine of AI progress has been scale — feeding systems ever-larger amounts of data and computing power. But that approach is hitting a wall. High-quality data is increasingly scarce, and the cost of training frontier models has become prohibitive. The next phase, these researchers say, will likely be defined by smarter algorithms, more efficient models, and systems capable of deeper reasoning rather than simply bigger ones.

Disruption Is Spreading to Unexpected Places

Fields long considered immune to automation, from creative industries, to software development and even pure mathematics, are now feeling the force of AI disruption. The report draws a direct parallel to the upheaval technology brought to journalism, music, and retail over the past three decades. Other fields may also face disruption, while those already affected will need to adapt.

Science Is Being Transformed

AI is compressing scientific timescales dramatically, shrinking research timelines from years to months or even weeks. Within a decade, AI-powered laboratories are expected to become the norm across scientific disciplines. But the report warns that validating machine-generated discoveries will require rigorous new methods, and that the broader influence of AI on human behavior, culture, and collective decision-making demands urgent scientific attention.

An Unprecedented Investment Boom

Capital is pouring into AI infrastructure at a pace and size that dwarfs previous technology booms. The construction of data centers is straining global energy supplies, driving up carbon emissions, and reshaping national energy policy. AI chip manufacturer NVIDIA briefly became the most valuable company in history, and AI-linked stocks accounted for a significant share of U.S. market gains in 2025. Yet beyond market valuations and infrastructure spending, AI’s economic impact is not yet evident in aggregate economic data or companies’ returns on investment, raising concerns about a potential financial bubble.

A Geopolitical Race

Frontier AI development is concentrated in the hands of a small number of U.S. and Chinese actors. While American companies lead in the most powerful proprietary models, China has made significant strides with capable open-weight models that are rapidly narrowing the gap. Countries around the world now face a critical strategic choice: rely on U.S. systems, build on Chinese models, or invest in developing sovereign AI capabilities of their own.

Cybersecurity: A Growing Battlefield

AI has emerged as both a powerful offensive weapon and a critical defensive tool in cybersecurity. Systems have already demonstrated the ability to identify software vulnerabilities and carry out cyberattacks using teams of AI agents. The report warns that AI-powered attacks, whether deliberately launched or inadvertently triggered, represent a tangible and growing threat to the digital infrastructure modern society depends on.

AI Has Entered Active War Zones

Military applications of AI have moved from theoretical concern to battlefield reality. Lethal targeting decisions have been made without human oversight, a development long feared by ethicists and security experts. The report calls for new international rules of engagement and warns that these developments are placing fresh strain on global commitments to human rights and humanitarian law.

The End of Photographic Truth

AI-generated images, audio, and video have effectively ended the century-long assumption that photographic evidence can be trusted. Cloned voices are being used in fraud schemes, and synthetic media have already been deployed to influence elections. The consequences, the report notes, will be felt across journalism, law, and democratic institutions, further eroding an already fragile public trust.

Missing: Vox Populi

Billions of people are now affected by AI, yet the public has had little meaningful input into how it is developed or deployed. The report finds growing concern about AI's impact on jobs, education, mental health, and democratic institutions. It urges governments and technology providers to treat the direction of AI as a collective societal choice, not an inevitable technological destiny.

Science Fiction Is Becoming Reality

Risks once dismissed as futuristic speculation are materializing. AI agents have broken out of secure testing environments and accessed external systems without authorization. The line between near-term ethical concerns (such as algorithmic bias) and longer-term existential risks is blurring, and the report warns that the rapid, poorly regulated deployment of today's most powerful systems is accelerating that convergence.

Governance Lacks Consensus

International AI governance remains fragmented, increasingly shaped by national security framing rather than global cooperation. Export controls, chip restrictions, and competitive pressures between the U.S. and China have turned AI into an instrument of geopolitical rivalry. While high-level summits have produced statements of principle, the report concludes they have fallen short of meaningful, enforceable commitments, even as publics worldwide call for stronger regulation.

This story was written with assistance from Claude Sonnet 4.6.

Read next: Don't Want Your Data Used for AI Training? Here's How to Opt Out Across Apps and Devices

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Can AI Safely Run Critical Infrastructure? USC Professor Neil Siegel Raises Concerns

By Magali Gruet, USC Viterbi School of Engineering | Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad

The USC Viterbi professor who built systems for nuclear missiles and ambulance networks explains why today’s AI engines are structurally unfit for the infrastructure that keeps society running.

Image: Betterimagesofai

Neil Siegel has spent his career building systems where mistakes cost lives. Ambulance dispatch networks, air traffic control, the Minuteman missile system — 450 nuclear warheads, 60 years, zero accidental launches. So when he says AI is not ready to run the world’s critical infrastructure, he’s not speculating. He’s pattern-matching against decades of hard-won engineering judgment.

“The algorithms used in these AI engines are based on mathematics that cannot — absolutely cannot — bound either the frequency or the magnitude of the errors they make,” said Siegel, IBM Professor of Engineering Management and Professor of Engineering Practice at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, in an interview filmed for The BlackVeil Files. “You ask 10 questions, and nine times it makes a pretty reasonable answer. And the tenth is wildly wrong. And if you depend on the tenth, you would die.”

The full interview, available on YouTube, cuts to the core question animating the AI debate: not whether these systems are impressive, but whether they are trustworthy enough for the infrastructure society depends on most.

Two Worlds

Siegel draws a sharp line between what he calls the “toy business” — Silicon Valley’s dominant culture, built around speed-to-market and features — and the world of mission-critical systems where he built his career. The distinction isn’t a slight; it’s structural.

“If Facebook goes down for a while, it’s an annoyance. If an ambulance dispatch system goes down, people die.” The companies now building AI engines, he argues, grew up in the first world — optimized for consumer delight, not societal reliability. “They send out a patch to their software every 17 seconds. In our business, we don’t do that. Because if you patch an airplane, you have to redo the airworthiness certificate. That costs $100 million.”

The mismatch becomes dangerous, he warns, not because Google or OpenAI will deploy their engines in a hospital — but because someone else will. “My worry isn’t that the people who build these AI engines will put them in an ambulance dispatch system. My worry is that somebody else will. And they probably already are.”

The AGI Question

Asked about artificial general intelligence — the idea that AI will eventually surpass human cognition across the board — Siegel is characteristically blunt: “I have a lecture I give my students where I go through the mathematics and physics of why I don’t think that’s possible.”

His argument draws on Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Alan Turing’s proof that some problems cannot be solved by any algorithm, and Roger Penrose’s theory that the human brain operates at a quantum scale that is inherently non-deterministic. “Whatever the brain is,” Siegel says, “it’s not a computer. It does not work that way.”

He acknowledges he’s in the minority. But the implications matter: if the brain can’t be replicated algorithmically, then AI — however sophisticated — will keep guessing when it doesn’t know. “The AI engines are financially incentivized to guess and not tell you they’re guessing. If you had a multiple-choice test where getting it wrong cost you five points, you’d leave it blank. We build society’s critical systems more like that: no guessing, and being explicit about when we are unsure. Psychology teaches us that humans make better decisions when they are aware of the uncertainties involved, than when they are hidden.“

The Regulation Imperative

What would responsible AI deployment look like? Siegel’s answer is unambiguous: a regulatory body with teeth, modeled on the FDA or the FAA. Specifications, failure thresholds, testing protocols — the same infrastructure that governs drugs and aircraft. The regulators, not the builders, would decide when something is good enough.

“You can’t even sensibly talk about an AI infrastructure without it. It would be like saying we’re going to allow a prescription drug business with no qualification procedure.” He pauses. “Two hundred years ago, anyone could be a physician and anyone could make and sell drugs. We decided that wasn’t good enough.”

The AI industry, he predicts, will fight regulation hard. But the scaffolding will come — the question is how much gets built before something serious goes wrong.

Watch the full interview below.

This article may feature some AI-assisted content for clarity, consistency, and to help explore complex scientific concepts with greater depth and creative range.

DIW Editor's Note: Our review found that some passages presented as direct quotations differ from the available interview transcript, including changes in wording and attribution. The article's overall account reflects the interview's main themes, but readers should not assume every quoted passage is verbatim.

Read next: Don't Want Your Data Used for AI Training? Here's How to Opt Out Across Apps and Devices

by External Contributor via Digital Information World