As Moises Naim says, these days power is easy to get, hard to use, easy to loose.

As complexity/unpredictability rises in any system its natual that govt will shed power. We have already seen this with setting of interest rates.

There is a long list of reasons why the Treasury Dept, President, House, Senate, Supreme Court or NASA doesnt get to set the rate.

Why did they hand over that power to the central bank? Read some financial system evolution history. Mindlessly ambitious people, the kind who run things hardly ever hand over power to someone else unless they see weilding the power puts a giant bulls eye on their head when the inevitable unpredictable/uncontrolable event occurs. Same goes with the Church or Religious institutions. Why does govt stay out of that lane? Why did Italy hand over the Vatican to the Church?

Governments are famously tolerant of other actors seeking to rival or usurp their power.

The important meta-conclusion that the article sadly misses is that the government will soon be using AI to regulate AI.

Sounds like someone has a call with Howard Lutnick in their future.

Never gonna happen when governments could just bomb the data centres.

this should and must not happen

at least in a democracy, even if flawed, power comes from the people, that is the fundamental raison d'être for people allowing a government to exist

this isn't the case of "AI Labs"

what he is proposing is nothing less then establishing at least partial oligarchy, or in other words while indirectly he is relatively openly saying he wants to overthrow not just the US constitution but more or all every democracies constitution (at least in spirit)

EDIT: Assuming AI Labs == existing private AI Labs like OpenAI. Something analog to the FCC for AI or similar is a completely different topic. But this wouldn't be called AI Labs as it wouldn't be a AI Lab. But a faster moving, less bureaucratic, commission (or similar group) which works in tight communication with AI Labs. So I'm pretty sure he means giving OpenAI and co. power officially comparable to the government in some sectors. Which means practical including corruption etc. it might be above that of the government.

Governments already use AI labs for surveillance, so, just the ownership will change, the victims will always be the citizens (Eg. see Flock cameras). Nothing gets better.

They really believe they are the new East Indian Trading Company. Delusion and all.

The thinking in this article seems muddled to me. Historically there are two fundamental models for rivalries between powerful economic actors and national governments.

* Regulatory capture - AI Labs [partially] capture government functions, i.e., take over. In practice this equates to oligarchy.

* Nationalization - Government takes over AI labs through some form of direct or indirect control (e.g., dirigisme).

The article discussion does not seem to consider either of them. And the idea that AI labs would act in the interest of citizens at large seems laughable. In practice it looks like California Forever [0], which is quite the opposite.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Forever

edit: clarity

This is kinda scary to think about... If we at some point have to pay a 'token-tax' or 'AI-tax' just to have access to something that may be embedded in all aspects of life... I fear society will get even more divided.

This is the guy who said open weight models are “decelerationist” and will lead to “AI communism” and a “dystopian hellscape” so I’d categorize him more as an OpenAI spokesperson than a strategist. His takes always sound more like someone who chugged the kool aid rather than any kind of rational take.

https://xcancel.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412