OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Counterbalance Government Power
An OpenAI Strategist Says AI Labs Should Rival Government Power
Dean Ball, OpenAI's new Head of Strategic Futures, argues that frontier AI labs could become a 'counterbalance to government,' a notion that challenges traditional state-corporate hierarchies. As AI integrates into critical infrastructure, the article explores the implications for accountability, taxation, and the balance of power, questioning who checks the AI companies themselves.
If the people building frontier AI are right about where this technology is heading, the implications go well beyond chatbots and productivity software.
- gr_norm
> Ball, who recently joined OpenAI as Head of Strategic Futures, has argued that frontier AI labs could become a “counterbalance to government.” Before joining the company, he described the organizations building the most advanced AI systems as a “new kind of institution under the sun.”
Upvoted not because this is an agreeable idea, but so more people see their insanity for what it is.
- randomImmigrant
It is good to see the real game being clarified, and openly admitted to.
Nothing about this technology makes it special. What’s allowing for such conversations is entirely traceable to unsupported claims made by the very companies now looking to cement their control by excluding themselves from all regulation.
A rival to global governmental power. That is the deranged, power hungry goal that is driving the shape of its technology.
- chasd00
by this article's argument then government should be second to the power of Internet, telecom, electricity, and even water providers. Government can't do very much if the lights are off, communications don't work and the toilets don't flush. Yet all of those examples either live in fear of, are regulated by, the gov.
- khuey
Governments are famously tolerant of other actors seeking to rival or usurp their power.
- beloch
"AI companies want to be regarded as something more consequential than ordinary businesses — institutions capable of balancing states — the conversation cannot stop at their freedom from government control. It also has to include the responsibilities that come with becoming indispensable."
--------------
1. We're not there yet. LLM's are great at some things, but we have yet to find out if AI companies are on the fast track to AGI or merely trapped in a deceptively promising local maxima.
2. AI companies, should they build AI capable of replacing more humans, could, potentially, one day, wield economic clout that's disproportionate compared to their own human workforce (instead of just debt). Is political power meant to represent economic output or people though? I would argue that, no matter the impact on the economy, a tech CEO should have one vote, the same as any bum on the street. It may not be the current reality, but that's the ideal of democracy. If we abandon it, the disillusioned masses might not be so complacent about it. Are AI CEO's seriously proposing they be granted a portion of the state's monopoly on violence? Hell no!
3. Couldn't most of this just be done with a competent regulatory body? The current U.S. government doesn't appear capable of regulating lemonade stands and we're always going to be four years or less from another potential bout of gross incompetence. That's what independent regulators are for. Establish a body full of field experts a […]