I have an alternative! Regulation. A government can simply regulate what is and isn't legal, and in most of the world, that's been what governments do.

I'm sure a country like the US, which is filled with lawyers, can come up with a couple laws, and find some goons to enforce it, that cannot possibly be that hard when other countries can figure it out too.

The EU already has AI regulation and it's about as effective as you'd think it would be.

The AI industry is built on mass piracy and copyright violations, regulation isn't going to make it go away or even comply any time soon.

We have laws banning technology that can be used to produce generative images of someone that look like them with their clothes off. The result wasn't fixing generative AI (we don't know how to actually control that kind of thing because it's almost impossible to manually tweak a machine learning model), but to add a bunch of input and output filters that'll pass the test for most regulators checking compliance.

Who would lobby that? On the other hand there are a lot of entities that will lobby against this.

Again, somehow other governments in the world have figured out how to do things for the people, without a company having to lobby for it. For example USB-C ports on all devices, I don't think Xiaomi lobbied with billions and that's why the EU decided that.

If companies control the government, then that's not a government, that's a group of companies.

"socialise ownership and control" ... this always ends up with just one person owning(not literally) it, through sheer misuse of political power.

As far as I can see as of now, there is no "realistic" way out. It's a problem of human nature... People are corrupt, people with authority are more corrupt, and people with money and authority, even more. Come intelligent and cheaply mass-produceable robots, and we'll have a new, 4th level spinup too that will be worse than the first 3, combined.

We’ll probably do the same we did with electricity, water, banking and telecomunnication - regulate (even in US) so that everyone has more or less equal access to it.

Regulate so that you price out equal access to it.

Small players can't afford cost of regulation.

Then create a layer around that which all small players pay into so they can participate regardless of whether they do or not - something like insurance or licensing.

Modernity.

Can you explain some of these alternatives that are so bad?

One bad possibility is that AI & robotics advance to the point where they can do every job better and more cheaply than humans; and then humans are no longer employable and all die if they have insufficient capital to survive the period between unemployment and post-scarcity.

Another possibility is that, once AI exceeds human performance in all economically useful activities, including high-level planning, governance, law enforcement, and military actions, it discovers that the benefits of keeping humans around aren't worth the costs and risks.

Bad: let tech (now "AI") companies, built on the collective (often in theory IP-protected) output of humanity, own and mediate an ever increasing proportion of the value created in society. Intellectual rent-seeking, if you will.

Bad: the above but also their power and influence grows so much and governments are so ineffective (or corrupt) against them that the tech companies also become de facto governments and people rely on them to survive. Also they destroy earth even faster with nobody left to stop them. The full fat cyberpunk dystopia.

Bad: the above but with lots more fascism and war. Too many people seem to want this.

Bad: regulate AI to such an extent as to cede all growth and technological leadership to whoever doesn't

...

I've been thinking of ways to legally structure an Intellectual Property Cooperative, which is the only way I can think of to solve the current exploitive digital economic system.

Yes. And it can be done in less "communist" ways; have countries' governments invest serious capital (even if they have to raise debt - they do anyway) in income producing assets related to AI, like large stakes in AI labs, building data centres etc.

From my understanding, the state or community owning the means of production (in this case, ai labs) is one of the central thesis of communism.

More like a sovereign wealth fund type of concept

Yes, doesn't need to be "communist" or even fully socialist.

I think governments should invest in their economies - mostly by investing in research, education, infrastructure, health and wellbeing of citizens, etc. but also putting capital into the later stages of expansion would make sense.

I certainly don't think people should not be able to start or own or profit from companies. But I do see a reason to limit their scale and/or make them more publicly owned beyond an certain scale.

I quite like the idea that "public" markets should become truly public, e.g. by some ratcheting percentage of public companies becoming owned by society at large over time (there would be several ways this could be done). This somewhat happens with the largest companies via index funds but only for those big enough to be in the indices and the distribution in unequal.

Maybe there are other/better ways, but it's pretty clear to me that big companies have a lot of negative impacts that aren't properly accounted for and so they are a very significant way in which a few people get richer at the expense of everyone else.

Seize the means of production!

Tokens to the people!

I'll be satisfied if we just manage to seize the means of our otherwise impending servitude under corporate techno-fascism…

I figure capitalism may soon become obsolete. But I don’t think this speculation is going to make for interesting discussion on here.

I find the technical discussion more interesting and could do without some of the moral grandstanding in the comments.

People say that but the quote. " I can sooner imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." Always comes back to me. Personally I think it won't be communism but communalism.