OpenAI has put forward a set of proposals aimed at mitigating the economic impacts of advancing artificial intelligence. The 13-page document suggests implementing higher taxes on the excess profits of companies whose "robots" will replace human workers. It also calls for a large-scale social safety net for displaced workers and advocates for a four-day work week, funded by "efficiency dividends" generated by AI. The company proposes financing these initiatives through the future wealth that AI is expected to create. This approach follows a pattern of identifying a potential problem and then offering a solution that could benefit the company, funded by public resources and potentially disadvantaging market competitors.
This initiative surfaces shortly after a report in The New Yorker characterized OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as less than scrupulous in his dealings with investors and lawmakers. In this context, OpenAI's proposals appear less as genuine concern for the workforce and more as an effort to divert attention and preemptively secure favorable conditions. OpenAI is demonstrating a willingness to engage in complex strategic maneuvers, where idealistic rhetoric masks concrete financial and political objectives.
Essentially, OpenAI is attempting to shape its preferred version of industrial policy for AI rather than proposing a direct solution. The document even references Donald Trump, indicating an effort to align with broader political currents in Washington, where regulatory frameworks for AI are still undefined. Instead of waiting for potential government sanctions or restrictions, OpenAI is presenting its own scenario, positioning itself as a central player. This is an astute move designed to circumvent stringent regulation by appealing to societal well-being, while the primary economic benefits of AI are likely to remain concentrated among a select few.
This strategic play by OpenAI is designed to generate significant public discourse in Washington, potentially leading to prolonged discussions that may not yield concrete action. By offering what could be perceived as an "economic incentive" from an industry leader, OpenAI might succeed in delaying the implementation of potentially restrictive regulations. The critical question is whether this ensuing debate will lead to the development of equitable AI policies, or if it will result in the establishment of rules that favor OpenAI and a few other major players, leaving startups and traditional businesses to observe how these "efficiency dividends" are distributed.