Nick Bostrom flags anti-AI backlash as emerging risk

Nick Bostrom, the Oxford philosopher best known for framing existential AI risk in Superintelligence, is now warning that the counter-reaction to AI has itself become a threat worth taking seriously. In an interview with Le Monde, Bostrom draws a line between legitimate safety concerns -- which he says remain under-resourced and poorly addressed -- and what he characterizes as populist opposition driven by job displacement anxiety and frustration with low-quality AI-generated content. His argument is that the latter category produces regulatory pressure and public hostility that slows beneficial research without actually targeting the underlying safety problems. Essentially: (Bostrom, YouGov data) show a public mood that is skeptical and slowing in ways that cut across both harmful and beneficial AI work indiscriminately. - 71% of Americans now believe AI development is moving too fast, per YouGov polling cited alongside the interview. - Bostrom distinguishes "AI slop" discourse and labor-displacement fears as poorly targeted criticisms that conflate product quality complaints with safety governance. - His core claim is that over-regulation risk and under-regulation risk are now both live, requiring calibration rather than a single directional response. The interview marks a notable rhetorical shift from a thinker who spent a decade warning almost exclusively about AI moving too fast -- now arguing the pendulum has genuine momentum in both directions.