How AI Destroys Institutions ( Boston University School of Law)

[usonian]

https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/publications/how-ai-destroys-institutions/

TLDR: In short, current AI systems are a death sentence for civic institutions, and we should treat them as such.

Free paper here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5870623

Amazingly long Hacker News discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46705606

How AI Destroys Institutions
Boston Univ. School of Law Research Paper No. 5870623
40 Pages Posted: 8 Dec 2025 Last revised: 21 Jan 2026

Woodrow Hartzog
Boston University School of Law; Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society

Jessica M. Silbey
Boston University - School of Law

Date Written: December 05, 2025

Abstract

Civic institutions—the rule of law, universities, and a free press—are the backbone of democratic life. They are the mechanisms through which complex societies encourage cooperation and stability, while also adapting to changing circumstances. The real superpower of institutions is their ability to evolve and adapt within a hierarchy of authority and a framework for roles and rules while maintaining legitimacy in the knowledge produced and the actions taken. Purpose-driven institutions built around transparency, cooperation, and accountability empower individuals to take intellectual risks and challenge the status quo. This happens through the machinations of interpersonal relationships within those institutions, which broaden perspectives and strengthen shared commitment to civic goals.

Unfortunately, the affordances of AI systems extinguish these institutional features at every turn. In this essay, we make one simple point: AI systems are built to function in ways that degrade and are likely to destroy our crucial civic institutions. The affordances of AI systems have the effect of eroding expertise, short-circuiting decision-making, and isolating people from each other. These systems are anathema to the kind of evolution, transparency, cooperation, and accountability that give vital institutions their purpose and sustainability. In short, current AI systems are a death sentence for civic institutions, and we should treat them as such.

[GreatGazoo]

1. The backlash to AI is underway but not for the reasons these two cite

I read part of that paper -- it is an opinion piece (?) but they publish a draft with abstract like it is science looking for peer-review? This is new to me.

Thanks for sharing it. The timing was excellent as I just wrote a clip about "Velvet Prisons" the documentary featuring Russell Jacoby. While Hartzog and Silbey assert:

Purpose-driven institutions built around transparency, cooperation, and accountability empower individuals to take intellectual risks and challenge the status quo....

Jacoby would read this as either sarcasm or wishful thinking. Jacoby argues that legacy institutions are insular and self-protecting. His title refers to the dynamic by which the smartest among us wind up producing nothing of value due to the structure and politics of these legacy institutions. Those who outshine or reach alternative conclusions are treated as a threat to the hierarchy which Hartzog and Silbey praise.

Jacoby uses a counter-example to make his case: because they are constrained by the politics of their own departments, professors who HAVE made notable contributions to knowledge and understanding had to do so OUTSIDE their department. And even then they are punished for emerging as thought leaders:

"Well, Noam Chomsky, I suppose, is tend to used in two different ways, because, as he's actually a professor of linguistics, not a professor of politics, and it's clear that he would've never become a professor of politics."

"Think of the mediocrities out there. Think of the thousands, tens of thousands of people who are saying nothing about anything and prospering! And then you have one guy who's done, yes, he's controversial, I don't agree with everything he says, but, it's amazing that, if you have the marshaling of this kind of political power to send him packing, what lessons do you draw? I mean, you have to be very careful what you say until you get tenure. Well, the problem is, by the time you get tenure, you've forgotten what you wanted to say, you've lost the will, it no longer seems important." -Russell Jacoby, Velvet Prisons

I'm no fan of AI. It is mis-named and half-baked but it is still evolving. Still steerable toward a better version. It is dystopic and soul-crushing but more to the present point, colleges need to adapt rapidly if they are to maintain value.

I am currently focused on the backlash to AI which is very encouraging. In the Arts, people are now more inclined to seek out live performances. In the EU laws have been passed so that all AI output must be labeled as such and people must allowed to opt out of become the training inputs. It is hard for me to square that with Hartzog and Silbey who seem only concerned with maintaining colleges as gatekeepers and brands. Them calling colleges "super heroes" and "transparent" seems to show an unwillingness to be realistic.

IMHO we need to replicate the laws that the EU has. And we need to help our children make the best career choices they can using everything we know about the changes that are underway.
- - - -

This is Kurt Jacobsen's doc featuring Jacoby (I have no idea why it should be age restricted (!?) It mentions but does not show the execution of the Rosenbergs, mentions communism many times) :