Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has warned of the growing threat posed by artificial intelligence falling into the hands of terrorists and “rogue states,” potentially endangering civilian populations. In an interview with BBC journalists, he outlined the most pressing risks associated with AI development and shared his views on how the industry should be regulated.
According to the billionaire—who previously discussed this issue on the Today program—nations such as North Korea and Iran could rapidly adopt neural network technologies and weaponize them for the creation of biological warfare agents.
He also expressed support for the Biden administration’s recent decision to restrict exports of advanced microchips, which are essential for developing sophisticated AI systems. Under the new policy, chip exports are now permitted only to 18 allied nations, a move intended to hamper AI advancements in potential adversary states. However, with Donald Trump potentially returning to power, there is speculation that this decision could be reversed.
Drawing attention to the dangers AI could pose in the wrong hands, Schmidt invoked the tragic events of September 11, 2001, when al-Qaeda, under Osama bin Laden’s leadership, hijacked passenger planes and launched coordinated attacks on key U.S. targets, resulting in thousands of deaths. He warned that AI could become just as lethal a tool in the hands of terrorists as conventional technologies once were for bin Laden.
While private corporations will remain at the forefront of AI development, Schmidt stressed the necessity of governmental oversight. “We recognize our immense responsibility and do not seek to develop these technologies without control,” he emphasized.
At a recent AI summit in Paris, global leaders debated regulatory measures for the industry. However, both the U.S. and the U.K. refused to sign the final agreement, deeming the proposed restrictions excessively stringent. “Overregulation would stifle this revolutionary industry just as it is taking off,” explained U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance.
Schmidt agreed with this sentiment, citing Europe as an example—where, in his view, stringent regulations have significantly slowed AI progress, despite its importance being on par with historic innovations such as electricity.
He acknowledged that tech giants were initially slow to grasp AI’s transformative potential. “Fifteen years ago, we did not fully comprehend the magnitude of the changes ahead. Today, major corporations understand their responsibility, even if their perspectives on risks and priorities may diverge from those of governments,” Schmidt observed.
Notably, it was under Schmidt’s leadership that Google acquired Android, which later became the world’s most widely used mobile operating system. However, his views on digital technology have evolved, particularly regarding its impact on children.
“We in the tech industry were mistaken in believing that our products unequivocally made the world a better place,” Schmidt admitted. He now supports banning smartphones in schools and restricting social media access for children under 16. While properly managed technology can be beneficial, he warned that society is conducting a dangerous experiment on an entire generation.
His concerns align with those of many child welfare advocates, who argue that smartphones not only foster addiction but also deprive children of essential developmental activities. Australia has already responded to this issue, implementing a nationwide ban on social media for users under 16 in 2024. According to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the decision was driven by concerns over adolescent mental health.
However, recent scientific research presents a more nuanced picture. A study published in The Lancet found that banning phones in schools does not significantly impact student behavior or academic performance. At the same time, prolonged smartphone and social media use has been consistently linked to declining mental and academic outcomes. This suggests that addressing the issue requires a more comprehensive approach than outright bans alone.
