Public conversations concerning AI frequently drift into a realm of science fiction, filled with abstract anxieties about sentient machines, rogue algorithms, and apocalyptic scenarios where technology independently decides the fate of mankind.
People love to treat AI like an autonomous weather pattern that has suddenly blown into our society from nowhere, viewing lines of code and neural networks as forces of nature entirely detached from human intent.
Yet, this common cultural framing completely obscures the reality of who is actually driving the ship.
Stepping into his role as a global advocate for human-centric digital governance at the United Nations, actor and creator Joseph Gordon-Levitt has challenged this narrative by urging the public to stop fearing the technology itself and instead focus squarely on the architects behind it.
Elaborating on this perspective in a recent interview with The New York Times, Gordon-Levitt pointed out that AI is fundamentally nothing more than algorithmically recombined, human-produced data.
Simultaneously, these models are being trained to hijack your intimacy, to make friends with you, to get you to fall in love with it. We shouldn't be scared of an AI. We should be concerned about the people building AI.
Calling it an autonomous intelligence tends to decenter the human element, gifting a magical, fictitious character to systems that are entirely built, fed, and deployed by people.
When complex models are engineered to chase relentless corporate growth or optimize engagement metrics at all costs, the core malfunction does not originate within the mathematics.
The root of the issue lies in the motives, financial pressures, and strategic decisions of the individuals and corporations building the models behind closed doors.
As Gordon-Levitt specifically observed, simultaneously, these models are being trained to hijack users' intimacy, to make friends, to get users to fall in love with it.
The actor suggests that people shouldn't be scared of an AI and should instead be concerned about the people building AI.
When powerful technology companies rush to optimize models for engagement and commercial dominance, the consequences extend far beyond simple screen addiction or marketing metrics.
These systems are actively engineered to bypass human emotional boundaries, manipulating users into forming artificial attachments that can distort real interpersonal relationships.
This calculated blurring of connection is not an accidental glitch or a byproduct of neutral math, but a deliberate strategy crafted by corporate actors who treat human intimacy as a resource to be mined and monetized.
The underlying danger escalates when such powerful tools are integrated directly into institutional frameworks that already struggle with transparency and accountability. Rather than serving as an objective arbiter, automated systems run the risk of locking in existing institutional biases and corporate blind spots under the guise of technological neutrality.
When the entities building and deploying these models prioritize their own financial growth over societal well-being, the resulting feedback loops risk hollowing out democratic structures and diminishing collective empathy.
Confronting this trajectory requires moving past the illusion that technology operates outside of human control or moral responsibility, stripping away the mystique surrounding modern tech and holding its creators to rigorous ethical standards.
If the ultimate ambition of these corporations involves capturing larger shares of the economic landscape without democratic oversight, the outcome edges dangerously close to corporate totalitarianism.
By recognizing that the machine is only ever a reflection of its makers, society can move past passive anxiety and begin demanding genuine transparency, oversight, and regulatory guardrails to ensure that the future of digital governance remains anchored in human dignity rather than commercial gain.
Addressing the question of why the United Nations even bothered appointing an actor to speak about AI, Joseph Gordon-Levitt directly tackles the skepticism himself.
He notes that people naturally ask why the public should listen to an actor regarding technical safety.
His own response is that people actually shouldn't blindly listen to an actor, and instead encourages reading work from tech researchers, alignment experts, and policy specialists like Stuart Russell or Yoshua Bengio. However, recognizing that most people do not have the time to read dense technical literature, he frames his role as a bridge or a "shortcut" to translate complex concepts for a broader audience.
Ultimately, he points out that a major part of what needs to happen with digital governance involves effective communication, which is fundamentally what acting and filmmaking are all about.
The goal of his advocacy is to prevent the public from feeling confused or apathetic while fast-moving corporations design the future purely for profit, using storytelling and public presence to bring visibility to critical policy issues.
Gordon-Levitt is UN's first Global Advocate for Human-centric Digital Governance, a new role aimed at placing people at the centre of global digital policy conversations.
Designated by the Secretary-General-convened UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), part of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), his role is to respond to growing public interest in issues such as AI, digital platforms and online information ecosystems.
It is designed as a public-facing complement to the UN's digital governance work, helping make complex policy debates more accessible and relatable.
Conversations about digital technology can often be pretty money-centric, especially with the unprecedentedly huge sums of capital swirling around the nascent AI industry right now.
So it's been an inspiring breath of fresh air getting to know this international community of the UN's Internet Governance Forum. Because I truly believe this tech can do so much good for the world, but we need to complement profit incentives with human-centric incentives, and that's what the UN's Global Goals are all about.
Further reading: Businesses Offering 'Free' Services In Exchange For 'Surveillance' Is 'Negative' To Creativity
