JD Vance, Vice President of the United States, has weighed in on artificial intelligence — and he wants you to know the Terminator is not the problem. In an exclusive interview on Air Force Two, Vance told The Post that the real danger from AI is not killer robots taking over and starting to kill people. It is the slow creep into your personal life.
His warning comes as ex-staffers from Anthropic and OpenAI have raised alarms about the technology’s risks. One of those ex-employees warned last week that AI poses a greater than 10% chance of wiping out humanity by 2030 — and said the tech needed to be regulated “as soon as possible.” Neither President Trump nor other White House officials have expressed a desire to bring in rules for the top AI firms.
Vance’s Privacy Warning
Vance framed the threat in stark terms. He said the constant erosion of privacy is “a much bigger concern than the robots are going to take over and start killing people.”
“There’s a universe where we do this in the right way; there’s a universe where we do this in the wrong way,” he said.
“And I’m just extremely skeptical of companies coming to the federal government and saying regulate us,” he added. “The devil’s really in the details there.”
He pushed back against the idea that regulation could simply shield companies from antitrust laws. “The question is, regulate you in what way? In a way that shields you from antitrust laws? Because that sounds really terrible,” he said. “In a way that, you know, sort of, creates cartel-like activity? That doesn’t sound like a great idea to me.”
What Vance Would Regulate
Vance said he is open to working with companies to manage risks. “We’re certainly willing to in the future … work collaboratively with companies to minimize the risks here,” he added.
He named Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman as two of the people calling for government oversight. Google DeepMind head Demis Hassabis and Elon Musk also joined that call.
Killer Robots Are Not The Problem
Vance dismissed the Terminator-style fear outright. He said he does not see evidence that AGI could destroy human life in the manner of the fictional company Skynet.
He also rejected fears that robots will replace all human jobs.
The Surveillance Concern
Where Vance did worry is in two directions. He sees AI driving greater economic inequality and accelerating surveillance technology.
“The last couple of technological revolutions of human history have massively distributed resources up. And so, if you go back to the Industrial Revolution, why did you see the rise of fascism and communism in Europe? I think a very strong argument is because you had a massive increase in wealth disparity,” he continued.
He also worried about the invasion of privacy. “The story of technology and digital technology in the past 20 years is, I think, a story of really amazing tools that improve human lives combined with a massive invasion of privacy,” he said.
Both concerns come from his Catholic faith. “All technology should serve human beings as opposed to the other way around, and the purpose of technological development is to make human lives better,” he said.
“But I really, really worry about the acceleration of surveillance technology, and I think that’s something we have to be very careful of,” he added.
The Phone Listening Question
Vance even admitted his own doubts about the devices around him. “I mean, even just simple things, you don’t even [have to] get into the AI stuff, but like, you know, if you linger over a paragraph in your web browser or the s–t that you’re saying, you’re talking to your family like, you know, is your cell phone picking that up and using it to sell you digital advertising,” he went on.
“There are so many ways in which these technological tools have invaded human privacy,” he also said, “and I do think that we have to have a more straightforward conversation about how to balance those privacy concerns.”
The Devil In The Details
Vance’s skepticism is directed at the companies themselves. He worries they will try to use regulation to protect their own interests.
“The devil’s really in the details there,” he said.
A Faith-Based Approach
Vance tied his concerns to his religious views. He believes technology should serve humans, not the other way around.
“All technology should serve human beings as opposed to the other way around, and the purpose of technological development is to make human lives better,” he said.
But he added that the risks must be managed carefully. “I really, really worry about the acceleration of surveillance technology, and I think that’s something we have to be very careful of,” he said.
The Bottom Line
Vance is not worried about the robots. He is worried about the cameras, the microphones, and the data.
The question is whether anyone else agrees with him.
Comparison Of Vance’s Concerns
| Concern | Vance’s View |
|---|---|
| Killer robots | Dismissed; “a much bigger concern” than takeover and killing |
| Surveillance | Worried; calls it “a much bigger concern” |
| Job replacement | Rejected outright |
| Economic inequality | Sees it as a risk from AI |
| Regulation | Wants to work with companies; skeptical of shielding from antitrust |
Who is protecting what
The paper suspects Vance is protecting companies from regulation that could shield them from antitrust laws or create cartel-like activity. His pushback against regulating “in a way that shields you from antitrust laws” points directly at that motive. When an industry asks to be regulated, the paper asks the reader to consider the two usual motives: either the growth story is over and the warning calms investors, or the product is good enough to breed cheap competitors and the rules make sure nobody small can afford to build one. Here, Vance is asking companies to work with him to manage risks — in other words, to handle the problem together rather than hand it off to the government, which he distrusts.
Ask yourself why Vance would want companies to manage risks together instead of facing real regulation. The paper suspects the answer is that he does not trust the companies to ask for rules that actually protect people.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.