Microsoft Chief Economist Michael Schwarz says AI will be used by “bad actors”, such as spammers, to cause “real damage” and “clearly” must be regulated
Artificial intelligence will be dangerous in the hands of unscrupulous people, according to Microsoft Corp. Chief Economist Michael Schwarz.
BloombergBryce Baschuk
Context & Ripple Effects
Schwarz's intervention came after outside experts had already raised concerns about the public risks of Microsoft's Bing AI experiment. It establishes misuse by ordinary malicious operators, not only technical failure, as a central part of Microsoft's AI policy case.
The position also foreshadows Microsoft's more overt Washington engagement: later that month, Brad Smith was reported to be backing a dedicated AI regulatory agency. Together, the coverage shows the company pairing rapid AI deployment with arguments for formal oversight.
First-order effects
Microsoft publicly associates broadly available AI with abuse risks such as spam, strengthening the case for safety controls and regulatory engagement around its AI products.
The warning gives policymakers and enterprise buyers a concrete misuse category to scrutinize: AI-assisted fraud, spam, and other harmful automated activity rather than model performance alone.
Second-order effects
AI providers competing with Microsoft face greater pressure to show how their tools limit abusive use, while customers may demand clearer safeguards before deploying generative AI at scale.
Regulatory debate shifts toward operational questions—monitoring, access controls, and accountability for misuse—rather than treating AI rules as a purely abstract safety discussion.
Third-order effects
If providers continue to seek rules while commercializing AI, governance capacity becomes a competitive differentiator: firms able to document controls and work with regulators may gain an advantage in enterprise and public-sector adoption.
The longer-running tension is whether regulation can curb misuse without concentrating access and compliance advantages among the largest AI platforms; this coverage does not resolve that trade-off.
The trend: AI vendors are moving from broad safety rhetoric toward a model in which product distribution, misuse prevention, and government rulemaking are tightly linked.
AI has the potential to transform our lives by cutting out mundane tasks, says Michael Schwarz (@Microsoft) at #GrowthSummit23 'If we play it right, we'll all be better off.' https://twitter.com/...
Is the possibility of losing jobs to AI a cause for concern? Michael Schwarz (@Microsoft) suggests that there is a more pressing issue we should be paying attention to instead. #GrowthSummit23 https://twitter.com/...
The call to regulate is also a call to limit competition. Sadly it is difficult for some to determine in real-time what part we are looking at. Yet the chimera alliance that is forming will be seen historically as a turning on innovation from small companies and individuals. http…
Interesting to read @demishassabis respond to @geoffreyhinton's resignation, saying he could have raised concerns + stayed within Google. Maybe - but linking such concerns to a potential DeSantis presidency might have been problematic - as he did to MIT. https://www.bloomberg.com…
@CadeMetz One of the most personally pressing issues is that this would have been a moment for Dr. Hinton to denormalize the firing of @timnitGebru (not to mention many that have recently followed). To say it was the wrong choice. Especially given his statements supporting ethica…
Sigh. I know some people who warned that Google, & AI broadly, would be dangerous to society. But we didn't collect $44M along the way & then shrug our shoulders about it. “The Godfather of AI' Quits Google and Warns of Danger Ahead - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/..…
I'm not arguing w the fact that AI poses risks. I AM ceaselessly annoyed by the pattern This is not new or novel. It was women - @timnitGebru @mmitchell_ai, me, et al - who rang the AI alarm years ago & were retaliated against, pushed out for doing so. https://www.nytimes.com/...
I asked @jaketapper to ask Hinton about his lack of support for @timnitGebru, @mmitchell_ai @mer__edith and other whistleblowers. His response is that their concerns were less existential than his and that it's easier to voice concerns if you leave first https://www.cnn.com/...
“People with much less power and more marginalized positions were taking real personal risks to name the issues with AI and of corporations controlling AI” @mer__edith on fire in this column from @parmy https://www.bloomberg.com/...
frustrations about the Dr Jeffrey Hinton interview in @nytimes - not least that the concerns he raises are the very same that @timnitGebru and team were silenced on and subsequently squeezed out of Google. Secondly the ‘too late for regulation’ mantra https://www.nytimes.com/...
The narrative of “I've earned my millions, now I think bigtech should consider ethics and privacy” is getting so repetitive, they should include the boilerplate text in contracts ... https://twitter.com/...
I'm so glad folks are questioning the redemption tours of people who step out of tech. Being an arsonist and getting lauded for warning of a fire you started is ridiculous. https://twitter.com/...