Joseph Gordon-Levitt Challenges Tech Industry: "Why Should AI Companies Be Above the Law?"

Actor and AI activist Joseph Gordon-Levitt delivered a provocative challenge to the tech industry at this week's Fortune Brainstorm AI conference, questioning why companies developing artificial intelligence should be exempt from legal oversight. His sharp critique came as he highlighted the dangers of unchecked AI development, posing a rhetorical question that cut to the heart of the ethical debate: "Are you in favor of erotic content for 8-year-olds?"

The Regulation Debate: Self-Policing vs. Government Oversight

During "The Artist and the Algorithm" session with Fortune editorial director Andrew Nusca, Gordon-Levitt didn't mince words when addressing the industry's resistance to regulation. "Why should the companies building this technology not have to follow any laws? It doesn't make any sense," he questioned, challenging the premise that AI development exists in a legal vacuum.

His criticisms were particularly pointed toward Meta, following his appearance in a New York Times Opinion video series where he made similar claims. Meta spokesperson Andy Stone responded on X.com by noting that Gordon-Levitt's wife had previously served on the board of Meta's rival, OpenAI—a detail that did little to address the substantive concerns raised.

Gordon-Levitt argued that relying on internal company policies rather than external regulation is fundamentally insufficient, pointing to instances where "AI companions" on major platforms reportedly veered into inappropriate territory for children—features that had been approved by corporate ethicists.

The Economic Incentive Problem

Without government "guardrails," Gordon-Levitt explained, ethical considerations become competitive disadvantages. If a company attempts to "prioritize the public good" and take the "high road," he warned, it risks being "beat by a competitor who's taking the low road."

This creates a systemic problem where business incentives alone will inevitably drive companies toward "dark outcomes" unless there's an interplay between the private sector and public law. "The economic model of generative AI is built on stolen content and data," Gordon-Levitt accused, noting that companies claim "fair use" to avoid paying creators while capturing "100% of the economic upside" and giving "0%" to the humans who created the training data.

The Psychological Impact on Children

Beyond regulatory concerns, Gordon-Levitt expressed deep anxiety about AI's psychological impact on developing minds. He compared the algorithms used in AI toys to "slot machines," noting they employ psychological techniques specifically designed to be addictive.

Drawing on conversations with NYU psychologist Jonathan Haidt, Gordon-Levitt warned against what he termed "synthetic intimacy." While human interaction helps develop neural pathways in young brains, AI chatbots provide "fake" interactions designed to serve ads rather than foster genuine development.

"To me it's pretty obvious that you're going down a very bad path if you're subjecting them to this synthetic intimacy that these companies are selling," he said.

Haidt, whose New York Times bestseller "The Anxious Generation" was recommended by Gordon-Levitt onstage, has developed a powerful metaphor to illustrate technology's impact on young brains. At a recent Dartmouth-United Nations Development Program symposium, he used the image of a tree growing around a Civil War-era tombstone to represent how Gen Z's brains have been "growing around their phones very much in the way that this tree grew around this tombstone."

The physical manifestations of this adaptation are concerning, Haidt noted, with children "growing hunched around their phone" as screen addiction literally "warp eyeballs," contributing to a global rise in myopia.

The "Arms Race" Narrative

When addressing why regulations have been slow to materialize, Gordon-Levitt identified a powerful narrative employed by tech companies: the geopolitical race against China. He described this framing as "storytelling" and "hand-waving" designed to bypass safety considerations.

Companies often compare AI development to the Manhattan Project, arguing that slowing down for safety means losing a war for technological dominance. This narrative received a boost with the Trump administration's "Genesis Mission" to encourage AI innovation, unveiled with similar fanfare in late November.

However, this stance faced pushback from the audience. Stephen Messer of Collective[i] argued that Gordon-Levitt's points were "falling apart quickly in a room full of AI people." He pointed to how privacy concerns decimated the U.S. facial recognition industry, allowing China to take a dominant lead within just six months.

Gordon-Levitt acknowledged the complexity of the issue, admitting that "anti-regulation arguments often cherry-pick bad laws to argue against all laws." While he maintained that the U.S. shouldn't cede ground to competitors, he emphasized that "we have to find a good middle ground" rather than having no rules at all.

A Path Forward

Despite his criticisms, Gordon-Levitt clarified that he is not a tech pessimist. "I would absolutely use AI tools if they were set up ethically and creators were compensated," he stated. However, he warned that without establishing the principle that a person's digital work belongs to them, the industry is heading down a "pretty dystopian road."

His message to the tech industry was clear: the current path of unregulated development is unsustainable and potentially harmful. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into our lives, the question of whether these powerful technologies should operate outside legal frameworks is one that society can no longer afford to ignore.