# The Problem with Move Fast and Break Things in AI Development

> The Silicon Valley ethos that built social media is now being applied to artificial intelligence. The consequences of getting this wrong are of a different order of magnitude.

*Section: Opinion — By Amelia Hart (Technology Correspondent) — Published September 29, 2025 — 1 min read*

Canonical URL: https://dailyjunction.org/opinion/problem-with-move-fast-break-things-ai
Tags: ai, tech ethics, artificial intelligence, silicon valley, opinion

## Key takeaways

- The move-fast ethos accelerates capability but externalises risk onto society
- AI systems failing in consequential domains carry serious costs for patients, defendants and workers
- Self-regulation has a poor track record
- Speed and safety are not always trade-offs

## The phrase and its history

The motto 'move fast and break things' expressed a genuine Silicon Valley philosophy: that the costs of moving too slowly exceeded the costs of errors made in haste. For a social network, the things that got broken were relatively abstract: privacy norms, platform trust, civic discourse. The same philosophy is now the dominant ethos in AI development. And the things that could get broken are qualitatively different.

## What is at stake

AI systems are being deployed in medical diagnosis, legal research, financial advice, hiring decisions, bail recommendations and social benefit determinations. When these systems fail — and they do fail, in ways that are often opaque — the costs are borne by patients, defendants, job-seekers and benefits claimants. The costs are not borne by the companies that built the systems.

## Why self-regulation is insufficient

The tech industry's record on self-regulation is not strong. Social media companies were warned about the harms of algorithmic amplification of harmful content for years before any meaningful action. The lesson of virtually every major technology externality is that self-regulation defers accountability until the harms become undeniable.

## The counter-argument

Proponents of the current pace argue that AI is too nascent to regulate precisely — that premature regulation will entrench incumbents and slow beneficial developments. There is some truth in this. But 'we should wait for more information before regulating' is also exactly what the tobacco industry argued.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does this represent Daily Junction editorial position?

Opinion articles represent the views of the named author, not the editorial position of Daily Junction.

### Can I respond to this piece?

Yes. Submit letters to the editor via our contact page. Selected responses are published.

## Sources

- [The Guardian Opinion](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree)
- [The Times](https://www.thetimes.co.uk)
- [The Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk)

---
Daily Junction — https://dailyjunction.org/opinion/problem-with-move-fast-break-things-ai