Billionaire concerned the Antichrist might regulate his business

Here at Second-Hand News, we’ve noticed that people’s deeply held convictions can be remarkably considerate of their bank balances. Few people receive a spiritual revelation instructing them to make slightly less money.

Which brings us to Peter Thiel, the billionaire technology investor whose concerns about the Antichrist overlap rather conveniently with his objections to regulating artificial intelligence.

According to recordings obtained by Politico, Thiel used recent private lectures in Nashville to accuse Barack Obama and Pope Leo XIV of exploiting public unease about AI to “boost their own popularity”. His wider argument links restrictions on technological progress with the danger of an authoritarian world government and the Antichrist. IBTimes UK summarised the reporting on 11 October.

Most businessmen unhappy about regulation hire a lobbyist. Bringing in the end times does give the complaint a certain ambition.

Please complete your safety assessment before Armageddon

There are perfectly reasonable arguments to have about AI regulation. Which rules would protect people? Which would favour the biggest companies? Who should be responsible when something goes wrong?

You could discuss those questions using evidence, examples and proposals.

Or you could make everyone wonder whether asking a technology company to behave responsibly puts them on the wrong side of the Second Coming.

Imagine trying this in another industry. A restaurant owner objects to a hygiene inspection because the requirement to refrigerate chicken could herald the final triumph of evil.

You would still want someone to check the fridge.

The prospect of excessive government power deserves scrutiny. So does excessive corporate power. Being worried about the first doesn’t oblige us to hand the second a blank cheque and hope its shareholders have our best interests at heart.

The Pope has apparently spotted a gap in the market

Thiel reportedly suggested that the Pope’s interest in AI was an attempt to distract attention from the Catholic Church’s sexual-abuse scandals. That is his allegation about the Pope’s motives, not an established explanation for them.

We’re certainly not going to defend the Church’s record on abuse. But it is possible for an institution with appalling failures of its own to raise a legitimate concern about somebody else.

Otherwise, very few institutions would ever be allowed to speak.

There is also something entertaining about a billionaire investor diagnosing everyone else’s ulterior motives. The former president wants popularity. The Pope wants a distraction. And the technology investor discussing restrictions on technology? Presumably he has arrived at the debate entirely unencumbered by personal interests.

How refreshing.

He really does think about this stuff

The Antichrist theme isn’t merely an unfortunate phrase extracted from a hurried interview.

In a July essay co-written with Sam Wolfe, Thiel discussed his earlier Rome lectures and argued that Pope Benedict XVI believed he was living in the end times. The piece explores apocalyptic theology at considerable length.

He may be entirely sincere. Sincerity, however, doesn’t settle whether a proposed rule about computers is sensible.

People can spend years developing an elaborate argument and still need someone to interrupt with: “Yes, Peter, but what does that have to do with the actual proposal?”

Nor do we need to pretend he has simply announced that Obama or Pope Leo is literally the Antichrist. The reported argument is more involved than that. It remains quite possible to examine it without accepting that fears about AI regulation require a theological emergency.

A few earthly questions

Before we move on to the ultimate fate of humanity, perhaps we could establish who gets sued when an AI system causes harm. Or what happens to someone whose work is used without permission. Or whether people can challenge decisions made about them by systems they cannot inspect.

These are ordinary questions about accountability. They don’t become unreasonable because the person being asked has an exciting theory about the apocalypse.

And yes, we use AI in producing this site. That hardly obliges us to believe the industry should be allowed to do whatever it likes. Using a car doesn’t require you to campaign against brakes.

Thiel is welcome to his theology. He is welcome to argue against particular regulations. He might even persuade people if he explains what is wrong with them.

But if your objection to a safety rule requires several lectures on the Antichrist, forgive us for wondering whether “this might cost me money” would have saved everyone an afternoon.

Back to the front page