When people talk about “slowing down AI,” most of the conversation turns emotional fast.
It becomes fear versus progress.
Jobs versus innovation.
People versus machines.
That framing is wrong—and it guarantees bad outcomes.
What’s actually needed right now is not opposition. It’s governance that matches human limits. That means lawmakers doing fewer dramatic things and more boring, stabilizing ones. And it means citizens understanding that advocacy isn’t about shouting—it’s about insisting on structure.
Let’s start with what lawmakers should actually be doing.
First, lawmakers need to stop pretending AI is one thing.
AI isn’t a single product. It’s a stack. Models. Interfaces. Integrations. Deployment contexts. The danger comes less from the core technology and more from where and how it’s applied. Treating everything under one blanket rule either strangles useful tools or leaves dangerous ones untouched.
The law needs to separate:
– Consumer-facing systems
– Workplace decision systems
– High-stakes domains like healthcare, finance, law, education
Different lanes. Different rules. Same principle: human accountability stays on top.
Second, lawmakers should mandate deployment pacing, not research bans.
Trying to stop development is a fantasy. Knowledge doesn’t un-invent itself. But deployment can be paced. Rollouts can be staged. Mandatory cooling-off periods between major capability releases can be enforced—especially for tools that directly affect employment, evaluation, or access to services.
This isn’t anti-innovation. It’s the same logic used in aviation, pharmaceuticals, and infrastructure. You don’t ground science. You regulate exposure.
Third, job displacement must be addressed honestly, not rhetorically.
People don’t need promises about “new jobs someday.” They need protections during transition. That means:
– Clear disclosure when AI is used in hiring, firing, or evaluation
– Limits on fully automated decision-making in employment
– Retraining programs tied to real job paths, not buzzwords
If lawmakers avoid this, public backlash will fill the gap—and it won’t be polite.
Fourth, there must be a right to human review.
Any system that denies a benefit, flags a risk, downgrades a person, or influences a life-altering decision should require a clear, reachable human override. Not a form letter. Not a chatbot loop. A human being with authority.
That single requirement would cool public anxiety more than a thousand speeches.
Fifth, lawmakers need to slow the incentives, not just the tools.
Right now, the fastest actors are rewarded. The market prizes speed over care. That’s backwards for something that reshapes cognition, work, and trust. Incentives should reward:
– Transparency
– Explainability
– Measured rollout
– Long-term accountability
If the system only rewards acceleration, it will always outrun people.
Now—what can regular people actually do?
This is where many feel powerless, but they aren’t.
First, stop arguing “AI good” versus “AI bad.”
That framing is lazy, and it lets decision-makers ignore you. Advocate for conditions, not absolutes. Say:
– Where it should be used
– Where it should not
– Under what rules
– With what protections
Specificity gets attention. Rage gets filtered.
Second, demand disclosure in everyday life.
Ask schools, employers, banks, and services when AI is used. Not confrontationally—consistently. When enough people ask the same calm question, institutions respond.
Silence is read as consent. Questions are not.
Third, support representatives who talk about pace, not hype.
Ignore tech evangelists and tech doomers alike. Listen for lawmakers who use words like:
– Phased
– Guardrails
– Human review
– Accountability
– Transition
Those are tells. They signal someone thinking beyond headlines.
Fourth, protect your own boundaries.
People forget this part. You don’t have to adopt everything immediately. You can choose when and how tools enter your life. That personal restraint is not resistance—it’s leadership by example.
When households slow down, markets notice.
Fifth, talk to each other—not just online.
Public sentiment doesn’t form on platforms alone. It forms at kitchen tables, workplaces, churches, community groups. When people realize they’re not alone in wanting a slower, steadier approach, confidence replaces anxiety.
That’s how pressure becomes organized instead of chaotic.
The key thing to understand is this:
The brakes people are asking for are not meant to stop the future.
They’re meant to make sure humans arrive intact.
If lawmakers apply them thoughtfully, AI can integrate without tearing social fabric.
If citizens advocate calmly and specifically, those laws get better.
If neither happens, backlash will still come—just louder, messier, and less precise.
Slowing down doesn’t mean falling behind.
It means choosing a pace we can live with.
That’s not fear.
That’s wisdom.
micvicfaust@intelligent-people.org
Unauthorized commercial use prohibited.
© 2026 The Faust Baseline LLC
