In a sharp critique of the current state of artificial intelligence, actor-turned-director-turned-AI-activist Joseph Gordon-Levitt poses provocative rhetorical questions that challenge the tech industry's resistance to regulation and illustrate the dangers of unchecked development. “Are you in favor of erotic content aimed at 8-year-olds?”
Speaking at this week's Fortune Brainstorm AI conference with editorial director Andrew Nsukka, Gordon-Levitt used the “Artists and Algorithms” session to ask a different, deeper question. “Why don't the companies developing this technology have to follow the law? It doesn't make sense.”
In a wide-ranging conversation that highlighted specific failures of self-regulation, such as cases in which “AI companions” on major platforms reportedly veered into territory unsuitable for children, Gordon-Levitt noted that such features have been approved by business ethicists and argued that relying on internal policies rather than external laws is insufficient.
Gordon-Levitt's criticism was partly directed at Mehta following his appearance in the film. new york times Opinion video series airing similar arguments. At the time, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone slammed X.com, pointing out that Gordon-Levitt's wife was on the board of Meta's rival OpenAI.
Gordon-Levitt argued that without government “guardrails,” ethical dilemmas become competitive disadvantages. He explained that if a company tries to take the “royal road” by “prioritizing the public interest,” there is a risk of “losing out to competitors who take the low road.” As a result, he said he believes that unless there is interaction between the private sector and public law, business incentives alone will inevitably lead companies toward “dark outcomes.”
“Artificial intimacy” and children
Beyond the lack of regulation, Gordon-Levitt expressed deep concerns about the psychological impact of AI on children. He compared the algorithms used in AI toys to “slot machines”, saying they use psychological techniques designed to be addictive.
Gordon-Levitt warned against “synthetic intimacy,” citing a conversation with New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt. He argued that while human interaction helps develop neural pathways in young brains, AI chatbots provide “fake” interactions aimed at serving advertisements rather than promoting development.
“It's clear to me that if you're giving them the artificial sense of intimacy that these companies are selling, you're going down a very bad path,” he says.
Mr. Hite new york times bestseller anxious generation Endorsed by Gordon-Levitt on stage, he recently appeared at a Dartmouth-United Nations Development Program symposium on youth mental health, using the metaphor of tree roots for neurons. Explaining that tree root growth is structured by the environment, he brought up a photo of a tree growing around a Civil War-era headstone. Regarding Gen Z and technology, especially smartphones, he said: “Their brains have grown up around their phones, just as this tree has grown around this tombstone.” He also discussed the physical manifestations of this adaptation, with children “growing up curled up around their phones,” as screen addiction literally “distorts the eyeballs,” leading to a global increase in nearsightedness.
The story of the “arms race”
Gordon-Levitt pointed to a powerful narrative adopted by tech companies as a reason for the slow pace of regulation: geopolitical competition against China. He described the framing as “storytelling” and “hand waving” designed to evade safety inspections. Companies often liken AI development to the Manhattan Project, arguing that slowing down for safety means losing the battle for supremacy. In fact, the Trump administration's Genesis Mission to foster AI innovation was announced with similar fanfare just weeks ago in late November.
However, this stance was met with backlash from the audience. Collective's Steven Messer[i] Gordon-Levitt's argument would quickly fall apart in a “room full of AI humans,” he argued. He cited, as an example, how privacy previously decimated the U.S. facial recognition industry, but allowed China to take a commanding lead within just six months. Gordon-Levitt acknowledged the complexity, acknowledging that “anti-regulation arguments often cherry-pick bad laws to oppose all laws.” He argued that the United States should not compromise its position, but that it “must find an appropriate compromise” rather than no rules at all.
Gordon-Levitt also criticized economic models for generative AI, accusing companies of building models based on “stolen content and data” while claiming “fair use” to avoid paying creators. He warned that a system where “100% of the economic turnaround” goes to technology companies and “0%” to the humans who create the training data is unsustainable.
Despite the criticism, Gordon-Levitt made it clear that he is not a technology pessimist. He said he would absolutely use AI tools if they were “ethically set up” and the creators were compensated. But he concluded that the industry is on a “pretty dystopian path” without establishing the principle that an individual's digital work belongs to them.
