# Innovation Chilling Effect **Entity class:** Policy mechanism **Domain:** Artificial intelligence / science / political economy **Maturity:** Developed ## Definition **Innovation Chilling Effect** An innovation chilling effect occurs when uncertain prohibitions, severe liability, or extreme penalties cause people and firms to abandon useful experimentation before a rule has even been tested. ## Mechanism and Consequence The relevant policy question is not whether harmful conduct should be constrained, but whether a legal design distinguishes dangerous acts from the broad work required to solve technical and social problems. ## Relationships - [[wiki/Risk Debate|Risk Debate]] - [[wiki/AI Control|AI Control]] - [[wiki/AI Entrepreneurship|AI Entrepreneurship]] - [[wiki/Technological Panic|Technological Panic]] ## Source Dossiers - [[research/AI Is Now So Good They Will Pay You to Quit|AI Is Now So Good They Will Pay You to Quit]] - [[research/Super Intelligence Week Index of Statements from the White House Luncheon|Super Intelligence Week Index of Statements from the White House Luncheon]] - [[research/Jensen Pushes Back on Doomers Moonshots Live|Jensen Pushes Back on Doomers Moonshots Live]] ## Simple Reminders, Quotations, and Thoughts > "There are so many real problems that need to be solved. I hate the idea that we are going to turn [superintelligence] into a do-or-don’t argument, which is utterly insane. Liability law in the United States makes it very easy to scare people into doing nothing. If people fear twenty years in prison before the rule has even been proposed, they stop acting, and that is the worst thing that could come out of this." > **— Dave Blundin**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/Risk Debate/Fear of Prison Can Stop People From Solving Real Problems by Dave Blundin|Fear of Prison Can Stop People From Solving Real Problems by Dave Blundin]] > "I would tell Geoffrey Hinton that it is irresponsible to say [there is a ten-percent chance of societal destruction from AI]. All of his predictions have been wrong. Enough predictions. That ten-percent chance is not grounded in science. It is not grounded in research. Just because it comes from a scientist does not make it scientific." > **— Jensen Huang**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/AI-Science Doomers/A Scientist's Prediction Is Not Scientific Without Evidence by Jensen Huang|A Scientist's Prediction Is Not Scientific Without Evidence by Jensen Huang]] > "If we all do a good job and act responsibly, [AI is not going to kill us]. I am optimistic that this is going to be a very positive future for everyone. There is a lot of rhetoric filled with doom, but there are a number of labs working on advanced AI, and I do not think we need industry-wide coordination in order not to mess this up. Each lab needs to take the time, when it sees issues, to make sure it is proceeding safely. We are entering a phase where trust and alignment will be the most important next set of capabilities." > **— Mark Zuckerberg**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/AI Control/Responsible AI Labs Can Build a Positive Future for Everyone by Mark Zuckerberg|Responsible AI Labs Can Build a Positive Future for Everyone by Mark Zuckerberg]] > "I think the worst possible outcome [for superintelligence] is deceleration, so don’t decelerate." > **— Alexander Wissner-Gross**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/AI-Science Doomers/The Worst Outcome for Superintelligence Is Deceleration by Alexander Wissner-Gross|The Worst Outcome for Superintelligence Is Deceleration by Alexander Wissner-Gross]] > "When examining the superintelligence debate, ask what evidence on either side would make someone change their mind. If you think ASI is bad, your narrative may be stuck; there may be nothing anyone can show you to prove it is not bad, and the same is true on the other side. It is very difficult to change narratives in our world." > **— Salim Ismail**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/Scientific Literacy/Ask What Evidence Could Change Your Mind About Superintelligence by Salim Ismail|Ask What Evidence Could Change Your Mind About Superintelligence by Salim Ismail]] > "A few decades ago, the United States government tried to ban encryption, and it was shown that banning encryption implicates free speech because you are trying to ban mathematics. Superintelligence is mathematics, and banning it should be unconstitutional because mathematics is free speech." > **— Emad Mostaque**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/AI-Science Doomers/Banning Superintelligence Means Trying to Ban Mathematics by Emad Mostaque|Banning Superintelligence Means Trying to Ban Mathematics by Emad Mostaque]]