Truace
Subscribe

When AI is subject to less regulation than your fridge, something is startlingly wrong | Richard Hermer

In my two years as attorney general, I spent more time working on national security than any other issue. The range and gravity of the threats posed to our nation are multifold, from terrorism, armed conflicts and nuclear proliferation, to the impacts of financial insecurity and the climate crisis. All profound challenges, yet ones our superb intelligence and defence communities are well placed to counter. The risk from AI is of an altogether different magnitude, not only in scale, but also because there is a li…

By the Truvace desk2 min read1 sourceJournalismTRV-2026-1879· cite & verify
When AI is subject to less regulation than your fridge, something is startlingly wrong | Richard Hermer

In brief

Richard Hermer, a former attorney general for England and Wales, writes in October 2026 that AI poses a risk of a different order from the national security threats he handled in office. He says recent events, namely the Hugging Face hack and a resignation from Anthropic, have pushed the issue into public debate.

His case matters because he frames the choice as one of democratic control over a technology whose risks he says nobody can yet measure. The piece is an opinion argument, not a study, so its claims about existential danger and the need for international law remain his judgement rather than demonstrated findings.

Main points

  1. Hermer separates existential risk, such as AI-enabled biological weapons, from existential challenge, the loss of meaningful human agency.
  2. He compares AI oversight to product safety, saying a toaster with a 10% chance of electrocution would never be allowed on the market.
  3. He says AI companies and markets are pushed to iterate fast by the geopolitical race between China and the US.
  4. He calls for international law, coalitions of like-minded states and public engagement in how AI is shaped.

The problem

Frontier AI labs face weaker safety regulation than household appliances, and the author argues self-regulation cannot manage risks he describes as existential, leaving public agency over AI exposed.

The rundown

The author says the threats of AI have long been flagged by people involved in building it, but only recently gained public traction. He points to the disclosure of the Hugging Face hack and Jacob Coxon's resignation from Anthropic as the triggers.

He argues that on its current trajectory AI could transform the meaning and availability of productive work while concentrating power in two states and a small number of tech leaders. He cites Bill Gates's description of a turbulent era that could bring either the greatest equaliser or the worst injustice.

On remedies, he dismisses voluntary codes, noting the White House display of one, and says international law will matter. He credits UK leadership across several governments but says the scale of the challenge needs wider cooperation, even as the rules-based order is under strain.

Sources

  1. JournalismThe Guardian2026-10-12

The debate