I don't think I'm arguing with a "phantom" at all, rather you seem to suggest I want OpenAI to own the economy when I rather precisely articulated the most desirable "rug pull" (using a phrase you yourself invoked elsewhere in this discussion) would be depriving them of that very opportunity. If anyone has misread this, I would suggest it's you. We simply seem to disagree on the timing and nature of the regulatory intervention.
Are you against UBI? We've gone back and forth with each other for a bit now and I still don't have an answer to that question.
Is that accurate and complete? If not, what am I missing?
Btw you didn’t ask me for my opinion on UBI, you declared your opinion as a statement or at most a rhetorical question not something that warranted a response. That might not be what you intended but reread your sentence and ask if someone would interpret it as a question rather than a statement.
I am not opposed to UBI or nationalizing AI, and I am not defending a managerial or ownership class. I am arguing that there is an intermediate step available to prevent the emergence of a monopoly that is fully vertically integrated with custom chips —> training —> inference —> application—> deployment.
Society doesnt need to allow that. We can limit OpenAI and anthropics ability to build the app layer. We could limit their share of compute to a percentage of available compute and make the remaining share available to other competitors. We could require that they distribute their training data to others after some period of time. We could require they release their weights.
There are a broad set of tools available to ensure that don’t capture the whole intelligence stack and then expand horizontally to, as you said, make it so “my business doesn’t exist in 10 years”. The fact that you don’t know my business but could credibly predict that they could put most businesses out of existence is a massive problem that UBI won’t fix.
I don’t want to live in a society where humanity is living on the patronage of monopoly AI. And AI won’t be viable if no one has money because they greedily expand everywhere and put people out of work and businesses out of existence.
I think there are intermediate solutions before UBI and full nationalization are needed and we should implement them. Specifically, making sure vertical integration isn’t allowed, making sure compute access is broadly distributed rather than let openAI and anthropic lock it all up, making sure training data sets must be released within a short time frame like we do with patents, making sure the labs can’t copy customers.
Now it is my turn to make sure I understand what you are saying. On that count, I think there is a remaining point where we are not understanding each other. And really the rest of the discussion hinges on this.
You say:
> I am not defending a managerial or ownership class.
But also say:
> I have talked to over 10 people at universities, SMBs, and large enterprises that are actively allocating millions of dollars to bring AI in house.
Who are these people with such authority if not the managerial or ownership class, or at the very least, their representatives?
I think what you are saying is quite plainly a defense of such interests. We sort of need to agree on that or the rest of the discussion cannot follow.
Once we align on that, I will have more to say which I believe will close the loop I have been attempting to weave.
I have been enjoying this back and forth though. Some of your points do make sense. Perhaps you are even correct. But let's be accurate about the nature of the two options we each propose, only then can we attempt to grasp some sense of the tradeoffs.
I am not advocating protecting the management class, quite the opposite, I am saying their demonstrated greed in vertical and horizontal integration should be stopped because they have shown they cant be responsible with management authority. You use the word balkenized to imply that fragmented AI is a bad but fragmentation is the basis of free market capitalism and in particular the start up ecosystem.
Your advocating that society just capitulate to Sam Altman and grant a permanent monopoly and the status as permanent underclass because he did "hard work" but that is flawed for two reasons: 1. Hard work doesn't justify destroying the very system that allowed the conditions for that hard work and innovation to create wealth by letting winners convert a free market to a monopoly. That tension is the internal contradiction of free market capitalism, winners will become monopoly such that no more winners are possible. We solved this in the progressive era with utilities, oil companies etc, by either breaking up the companies that had too much market dominance, or making them divest vertical integration units (like standard oil having to sell its rail lines because owning transportation gave it an insurmountable advantage). 2. There is no AI without training data AI which was taken without consent or compensation from public and private sources created by civilization over generations. So the polity has a clear preceding claim to that work and if any industry lacks a right to the ownership of what they've created it's AI. Sam Altmans hardwork is trivial compared to the totality of civilization writing over generations and creating the internet and maintaining libraries and a mailing system so they could collect that data economically.
For those reasons it's totally justified and we'll within the legal and commercial precedents we've established to limit how a single company can develop and operate AI. We should not allow vertical integration across the stack. Openai cant manufacture chips, train models, and build an everything app from customer training data. I don't know ow what owners your think I am defending or representing but I would suggest you are arguing with a phantom opponent that isn't me or are misunderstanding my position. I am not suggesting nationalizing AI or giving the polity ownership, I am suggesting standard corrective regulation to preserve a free market with clear preceding examples from the last technology transformation. We suffered great harm when the electric grid and phone lines and oil and shipping consolidation was unimpeded and unlocked innovation and broad wealth creation when we broke them up.