# Opinion | Lewis: I wasn’t worried about AI — until now - VailDaily.com

*Источник: VailDaily.com*
*Дата: 2026-09-19*
*Язык: en*

**Кратко:** Opinion | Lewis: I wasn’t worried about AI — until now
Most Coloradoans aren’t fans of AI or new data centers. A recent Magellan Strategies poll found that two-thirds view AI unfavorably and 75% oppose a new data center anywhere in Colorado, even away from home.

Opinion | Lewis: I wasn’t worried about AI — until now
Most Coloradoans aren’t fans of AI or new data centers. A recent Magellan Strategies poll found that two-thirds view AI unfavorably and 75% oppose a new data center anywhere in Colorado, even away from home. Yet 60% said they had used an AI tool in the past year.
Those are striking numbers. Most find the technology useful and still worrying about where it is taking us.
Many of us encounter AI without thinking much about it, through voice assistants, search engines and other everyday services. Like it or not, this is going to be like the transition from the horse and buggy to the automobile. It is going to happen and we need to manage the risks that come with it. There is one upside to all this doomsday talk: If AI wipes us out, we won’t have to worry about climate change anymore. Yes, I know. Bad humor. Sorry.
People often ask my opinion on AI, probably because I spent my career in technology. I have generally been optimistic that, with the right controls, its benefits can far outweigh its risks. Then the president dismissed warnings of AI destroying humanity as a “hoax.”
Now I am scared.
Support Local Journalism
I don’t expect a president to understand every detail of AI. I do expect him to take serious warnings seriously. The risks deserve attention, even when experts disagree about their likelihood. We cannot manage a danger we refuse to acknowledge. It’s like standing on a long, straight highway and seeing a car coming a mile away. There is time to get out of the way, unless you decide the car is a hoax and don’t move.
I am a geek. I use AI daily. I recently built a program that uses a camera and AI to detect snow on a walkway. It turns on the snowmelt system only when needed to save energy. I have read books on AI, can write software in multiple languages and have a minor in computer science. Even with all that, I would not call myself an AI expert.
Our legislators could use some of that humility. Axios recently reported that more than two dozen members of Congress and governors it interviewed rarely or never use AI. That does not tell us how many lawmakers use it regularly, but it should prompt a question: How well do the people writing the rules even understand the technology?
Legislators, many of whom have never used AI, cannot regulate it like they would building requirements (with thousands of pages of detailed regulations) or in other traditional ways. As an example, the recent Colorado legislation on AI is a joke and mostly a blatant attempt to incorporate DEI into AI programming. This is exactly what we don’t need.
I would start with accountability. Companies that develop and deploy AI should bear financial responsibility for harm their product causes. Executives who fail to protect us from AI criminal conduct or conceal serious dangers should face personal consequences, including criminal prosecution. “The bot did it” should not become an excuse.
That requires clear standards for who controlled the system, what they knew and what they could reasonably have prevented. A CEO should not automatically go to jail whenever someone misuses a product. But neither should an executive be able to collect the profits while leaving everyone else with the consequences.
What worries me about thousands of detailed regulations is the possibility that checking every box becomes a substitute for taking responsibility. Compliance should not be a blanket shield against liability. We need rules that make companies answer for harm done, even when lawmakers failed to anticipate the exact circumstances.
There are difficult cases. Open-source AI is one. Sharing software can spread innovation and put useful tools into more hands. But when a model can be copied, modified and distributed by people far removed from its creators, who is responsible when something goes wrong? The answer cannot simply be “nobody.”
International competition creates another challenge. Major countries, including China, have much to lose from dangerous AI. That gives them a reason to cooperate on safety, even while competing. It does not guarantee they will do so.
Then there is asymmetry: a small group’s ability to inflict damage far out of proportion to its size. The Sept. 11 attacks showed how devastating that imbalance can be. This is where we need targeted safeguards designed to prevent AI from helping malicious actors develop weapons or carry out mass harm. Financial penalties after a catastrophe would be little comfort.
I still want the benefits of AI, and I intend to keep using it. But optimism needs more behind it than a president’s assurance that everything will be fine. It needs people who understand the technology, companies that answer for the harm they cause and precautions taken before the damage is done.
We can see the car coming. I would sleep better knowing the people in charge are watching the road.
Mark Lewis, a Colorado native, had a long career in technology, including serving as the CEO of several tech companies. He’s now retired and writes thriller novels. Mark and his wife, Lisa, and their two Australian shepherds, Kismet and Cowboy, reside in Edwards.

[Оригинал](https://www.vaildaily.com/opinion/opinion-lewis-i-wasnt-worried-about-ai-until-now/)