Beware the language of human flourishing in AI regulation
Despite frequent assurances that AI will improve ‘quality of life’, many policy instruments remain voluntary, symbolic, or easily co-opted.
TechPolicy.Press recently published ‘Confronting Empty Humanism in AI Policy’, a thought piece by Matt Blaszczyk exploring how human-centred and humanistic language in AI policy is widespread, but often not backed by meaningful legal or regulatory substance.
Blaszczyk observes that figures such as Peter Thiel contribute to a discourse that questions the very value of human existence, but equally worrying are the voices using humanist, democratic, and romantic rhetoric to preserve the status quo. These narratives can be weaponised by actors seeking to reassure the public while avoiding strong regulation.
The article analyses executive orders, AI action plans, and regulatory proposals that promise human flourishing or protect civil liberties, but often do so under deregulatory frameworks or with voluntary oversight.
For example, the EU AI Act is praised, yet criticised for gaps and loopholes; many ‘human-in-the-loop’ provisions risk making humans mere rubber stampers.
Blaszczyk suggests that nominal humanism is used as a rhetorical shield. Humans are placed formally at the centre of laws and frameworks, copyright, free speech, democratic values, but real influence, rights protection, and liability often remain minimal.
He warns that without enforcement, oversight and accountability, human-centred AI policies risk becoming slogans rather than safeguards.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
