New Yorkers should listen to Mayor Zohran Mamdani, not because he is a politician, but because he is naming the single most dangerous idea in AI right now: that this technology will inevitably take over, and our only choice is to get out of the way. That narrative is a myth, and it serves the companies that profit from our resignation. The Mayor is right to demand regulations that protect the public and put power back in their hands. For anyone building or using AI tools, this is not a theoretical debate about the future. It is a practical choice about who controls the systems that already shape our work. Consider how Tolan secures $30M to expand its AI companion for 250,000 active users. That is a product designed to feel necessary, to embed itself into daily life. The company behind it would benefit enormously if users believed AI companionship was an unstoppable wave. Mamdani is asking us to reject that framing.
The inevitability argument is a convenient shield. When a company says AI is going to replace jobs, reshape industries, and erode privacy no matter what, they are not describing physics. They are describing a business model that depends on a passive public. The same logic applies to the tools we use every day. If you are a spreadsheet user, you have heard the pitch: AI will soon make your skills obsolete, so you should adopt the latest system now. That is not a technical forecast. It is a sales tactic. The more we treat AI as an unstoppable force, the less we demand accountability for how it is built, benchmarked, and deployed. The reality is that Benchmarking AI isn't simple, and that's worth exploring. Those evaluations are choices made by labs, not laws of nature. They can be challenged, improved, and regulated.
What does this mean for you? It means you have more power than the narrative suggests. When New App Store Rules Target Tools That Disguise Harmful AI Content, that is not a random policy update. It is a direct response to public pressure and regulatory attention. Platforms change their rules when they feel heat. Mamdani is trying to generate that same heat at the municipal level. The practical takeaway is this: the next time you hear that AI adoption is inevitable, ask who benefits from you believing that. The answer is almost always a company that wants to operate without oversight. Resisting the myth does not mean rejecting the technology. It means insisting that the technology serves people, not the other way around.
The specific detail to watch is how New York City's regulatory push influences other municipalities. If Mamdani succeeds in passing protections, the model will spread. If he fails because the inevitability myth convinces people that resistance is futile, that failure will also spread. The outcome is not predetermined. It depends on whether enough people choose to act on the idea that they are not passengers in this transition.