How Come Peggy Noonan Never Feared the Play Station 2?
The Play Station 2's arrival in the U.S. apparently never kept Peggy Noonan up at night. At least not publicly.
Notable about the gaming device is that while it escaped Noonan’s critiques, it didn’t that of Japanese weapons experts. In 2000, the Play Station 2 suffered military export restrictions given the view among some inside Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry that its CPU (the “brain” of the computer, or its central processing unit) could be repurposed in such a way that it could be used for drone piloting, nuclear simulations, or even missile systems.
So, while Noonan didn’t express public alarm about the Play Station 2, she does acknowledge the historical reality that technological leaps have long brought with them attendant hysteria about threats associated with the leaps. As she put it in her most recent column, aptly titled “Trump Is In Denial About AI’s Danger,” some close to her have had their hair “set on fire so often” by “Y2K, global warming, nuclear proliferation,” and countless other threats that they’re not going to be gulled by AI hysteria. Not so Noonan.
She’s taking the Play Station 2 approach to artificial intelligence: the gaming device was poised to give young and old endless joy but would also potentially blow up the world. According to Noonan AI will “cure cancer and blow up the world.”
This time is different, apparently. And it’s supposedly rendered even more different by the current White House occupant.
It’s not just that President Trump is in denial about what Noonan deems the “existential” dangers of AI, “his stand is ignorant, uninformed, profoundly careless.” Noonan might agree she’s shooting fish. Which is the point, or not.
Assuming Trump were wise, informed, and careful, just what does Noonan think he could do about AI? In asking the question, it’s useful to pivot to Nader Khalil, CEO and co-founder of Brev.dev, a prominent business within the AI sector. As Khalil has observed, more computer code has been written in 2026 than in all the years and decades leading up to 2026. And Trump is supposed to stop this?
Well, not just Trump. Noonan writes that Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton believes AI products “should be treated as the government treats drugs – you don’t release them until the Food and Drug Administration says they’re safe.” Sure, but just who in government does Noonan think capable of judging AI safety? Asked another way, does Noonan really think those capable of vetting AI work in government? Hopefully the question answers itself.
Of course, the federal government’s logically bare AI bench is what should have Noonan quite a bit more optimistic than she presently is. While it may be true, or not that President Trump “is ignorant, uninformed, profoundly careless” about AI, the stock markets are knowledge personified. And they’re not presently pricing the world’s end.
To which Noonan might respond that markets have been wrong before. Yes, precisely. The information systems that we call markets are constantly pricing, and re-pricing not just the knowns, but probabilities. This includes Noonan’s expressed view that planet earth’s days are numbered if AI continues unchecked.
At least for now, knowledge-pregnant markets don’t reflect Noonan’s certitude. But if she’s correct, they’ll know and tell us as much long before Trump, an AI FDA, or Noonan herself.
It’s a reminder that Trump is right even if he’s wrong. We shouldn’t stop progress based on what Noonan (and many more) feel. And not just because the progress skeptics have always been wrong about many more things than the Play Station 2.
Markets will tell us what threatens. They always have.
Originally published on Real Clear Markets.