He also said this, in the same blog post: > Ensuring that the benefits of AGI are broadly distributed is critical. The historical impact of technological progr

He also said this, in the same blog post: > Ensuring that the benefits of AGI are broadly distributed is critical. The historical impact of technological progress suggests that most of the metrics we care about (health outcomes, economic prosperity, etc.) get better on average and over the long-term, but increasing equality does not seem technologically determined and getting this right may require new ideas. > In particular, it does seem like the balance of power between capital and labor could easily get messed up, and this may require early intervention. We are open to strange-sounding ideas like giving some “compute budget” to enable everyone on Earth to use a lot of AI, but we can also see a lot of ways where just relentlessly driving the cost of intelligence as low as possible has the desired effect. The idea that distributing a "universal basic compute budget" to every person would do anything to solve potential economic inequality that may arise due to hypothetical AGI is just comically simplistic and childish. Giving people access to AI won't fix power imbalances if wealth continues to concentrate. Sam Altman is a professional bullshit peddler—particularly at this stage in his career, I rarely hear of him doing anything else.