It seems then, debates about (oligarchy-owned) AI-safety are parallel to debates about the safety of cybernetically-planned economies.. (If any of you are inte

It seems then, debates about (oligarchy-owned) AI-safety are parallel to debates about the safety of cybernetically-planned economies.. (If any of you are interested, I think the abstract core of the issue is about the porous boundary between excludability & rivalry*) Since we're doing anti-Soviet puns: 1. From the top comment (imho comments are usually more thoughtful than essays :) This philosophy of lack of accountability, of detaching individuals from the consequences of their choices is to me the fundamental flaw at the heart of... well, I was going to say "Western democracy" but that's a dubious expression, so whatever it is we live under now. Is it not enough to tax corporate personhood (or *cough* AI-hood or *cough* useful parrot-cy or cough agen-cy) as a public resource, then?! [Luckily, search engines haven't become sentient.. yet] >Stafford Beers’ cybernetic perspective on corporate organization (Beers is the originator of “The purpose of a system is what it does") https://archive.today/latest/https://thetechbubble.substack.com/p/the-phony-comforts-of-useful-idiots/comments https://archive.today/latest/https://thetechbubble.substack.... 2. Also from top comment (Potemkin AI pdf alt link) https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/chapter/3800165/Planetary-Potemkin-AI-The-Humans-Hidden-inside https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/chapter/3... * https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/29598 https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/29598