Google of course. Or so they will tell you.
Because the GOOG and NVDA and FB; BlackRock and Goldman and Amazon, and all the rest have put in the time and money to refine machine learning and build the chips and write the algorithms and everything they should by right get the benefit (power, money, sex, fame, glory, whatev) of the end result.
All very eighteenth century capitalism.
The issue we run into, and in fact began running into a decade ago, is the concept of advantage flywheels and winner-take-all businesses and concentration of the benefits to a vanishingly small group of humans. More on that after the jump.
From Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, the second of our two visits today:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the long run, technology has largely improved the human condition. Most of us live longer, more comfortable, and freer lives than our ancestors because of innovations from the past two centuries. Nevertheless, the economic progress from these innovations has not arrived equitably or smoothly. For example, the enormous wealth generated by the key technologies of the Industrial Revolution—namely factory mechanization, steam power, and railroads—initially accrued to only a few countries and individuals. Even today, industrial wealth remains highly unevenly distributed. In general, while technological innovation often produces great wealth, it has also often been deeply and acutely disruptive to labor, society, and world order. The world is likely to continue to experience both benefits and disruption from technological innovation. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) currently warrant special attention in this regard. A number of prominent economists have argued that AI is a rare “general-purpose technology” with the potential to transform nearly every sector of the economy. Some have also suggested, more speculatively, that it may ultimately produce both much higher rates of worker displacement and much higher rates of growth than any other modern technology. In light of ongoing advances in AI, it is imperative that we prepare for the possibility of extreme disruption and act to mitigate its negative impacts.
This report introduces a new policy lever to this discussion: the Windfall Clause. By voluntarily adopting the Windfall Clause, firms would bindingly agree to donate a meaningful portion of their profits if they earn a historically unprecedented economic windfall from the development of advanced AI. We define a “windfall” as a level of income greater than a substantial fraction (e.g., at least 1%) of the world’s total economic output. It is unlikely, but not implausible, that such a windfall will occur. As such, the Windfall Clause is designed to address a narrow set of low-probability future scenarios which, if they came to pass, would be unprecedentedly disruptive.
Properly enacted, the Windfall Clause could address several potential problems with AI-driven economic growth. The distribution of profits could compensate those rendered faultlessly unemployed due to advances in technology, mitigate potential increases in inequality, and smooth the economic transition for the most vulnerable. It provides AI labs with a credible, tangible mechanism to demonstrate their commitment to pursuing advanced AI for the common, global good. Finally, it provides a concrete suggestion that may stimulate other proposals and discussion about how best to mitigate AI-driven disruption.
Designing the mechanism by which funds from the Windfall Clause would be distributed would be a significant undertaking. In this report, we enumerate desiderata for an effective and successful distribution mechanism: namely, philanthropic effectiveness, security from improper influences, political legitimacy, and buy-in from AI labs. We preliminarily propose mechanisms for achieving these desiderata and invite further discussion and ideas for how such mechanisms could robustly achieve the moral and societal ambitions of the Windfall Clause. Among the contributions of this report is demonstrating that the Windfall Clause is legally permissible as a matter of American corporate law, notwithstanding corporate directors’ obligation to act in the best interests of the corporation. This is because the Windfall Clause would be low-cost in expectation, given that obligations only vest if a lab earns windfall profits, which is a distinctly low-probability event. Further, a commitment to the Windfall Clause could bring a lab significant benefits through better relations with employees, consumers, citizens, and governments.
The Windfall Clause draws inspiration from precedents in corporate practice, public policy, and personal philanthropy. Notably, the Windfall Clause adds to an increasingly creative global discussion centered around channeling technology-driven economic growth towards robustly equitable and broadly beneficial outcomes. Proposals already represented in these discussions range from reforming international tax law and competition policy to experimenting with radical new models for social welfare such as a Universal Basic Income....
....MUCH MORE (66 page PDF)
And some background on the current big-get-bigger pseudo-capitalism:
How to Think About Companies: "Advantage Flywheels"
"AI Designs Computer Chips for More Powerful AI" (GOOG)
"Inside big tech’s high-stakes race for quantum supremacy"
Not into quantum computers? Then you've made the decision to be a peasant, working for those who are.
And the rich get richer.
"The concentration of economic power has led to spectacular investment returns"
"An AI payout? Should companies remunerate society for lost jobs?"
How Amazon Rebuilt Itself Around Artificial Intelligence
"Flywheel Effect: Why Positive Feedback Loops are a Meta-Competitive Advantage"
