Steve Case, co-founder of AOL and a venture capitalist, expresses concern that the government may allow Big Tech to hinder AI innovation by taking away the ladder of opportunity.
Policymakers in Washington are engaging in a variety of conversations on how to prevent AI technology from getting out of control. Yet, the focus on risks is causing us to overlook how the AI economy should be organized, and which companies should be allowed to make use of its potential. Although AI is becoming cheaper with certain industries using it for their own advantages, the current high cost of building language models for generative AI means that most of the progress is being powered by Big Tech and not small startups as is usually the case. This diverges from the typical pattern of innovation, as disruption usually helps the small challenge the big ones. Moreover, the huge concentration on the dangers of AI could lead to the termination of the open source AI model that has allowed a global community of innovators to make and improve the technology fast. That could be hazardous for all of us, since AI can improve our lives in many ways. Consequently, some people are suggesting that the government should regulate AI and give licenses to a few established tech companies. However, this is not the direction America should take, as it would mean putting aside its traditional bottom-up model of innovation and adopting China's top-down approach to industrial policy. To avoid this, the government has to establish rules that enable entrepreneurs from all over the country to join in the development of AI, as well as assurance that the big tech platforms follow the same open access principles applied to phone firms decades ago. Washington must guarantee that medical researchers, startups in the Mountain West and ag-tech companies in Arkansas can take full advantage of AI and gain the associated rewards. AI should be a bridge that connects the tech world with the rest of America, not a wedge separating them
Comments