'AI won't just moderate posts, it will curate reality': David Sacks warns against govt control of AI
Washington DC, June 6
David Sacks, Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and former White House AI and Crypto Czar, has criticized US Senator Bernie Sanders' proposal to give the public a 50 per cent ownership stake in major American AI companies, warning that government control of artificial intelligence could lead to a "CCP-style social credit system" in the United States.
Responding to Sanders' June 2 post on X, Sacks said he understood why the proposal was resonating with some Americans but argued that nationalising AI companies would create greater risks.
"While I'm no fan of socialism or arbitrary confiscations of wealth, I can see why Bernie Sanders' proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates," Sacks wrote.
He said AI companies themselves had fueled public concerns by repeatedly warning about large-scale job losses.
"The CEOs of the leading AI labs have told us repeatedly that they will cause massive job loss. This is not a story that I believe, nor does the data bear it out, but this is what they have told us," he said.
Sacks argued that the bigger concern was government involvement in AI development.
"Nationalization of AI will accelerate the corporate-government fusion we're already sliding toward," he wrote.
Drawing a comparison with concerns around central bank digital currencies, Sacks added, "Conservatives rightly fear a Central Bank Digital Currency. They ought to be even more concerned about Central Government AI."
He warned that AI controlled by the government could become a powerful tool for censorship and surveillance, saying, "AI won't just moderate posts; it will curate reality."
The comments are in response to Sanders announcing that he would introduce the 'American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act.'
In a video shared on X, Sanders said, "I will soon be introducing a bill to give the public a 50% ownership stake in the largest AI companies in America."
Sanders has argued that AI systems were built using humanity's collective knowledge and that the benefits should be shared broadly.
"The foundation of AI is our collective human intelligence," he said, adding that AI had been trained on humanity's "books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images, and ideas spanning generations."
He said the proposed legislation would create a public stake in major AI firms through "a one-time 50% tax, not on profits, but on stock."
According to Sanders, the wealth generated by AI should benefit society rather than a small group of technology billionaires.
"The future of AI must not be decided behind closed doors in Silicon Valley. It must not be dictated by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profits," he said.
Sanders said revenues generated through the proposed sovereign wealth fund could be used for direct payments to Americans and to support healthcare, education and housing initiatives.
— ANI
Reader Comments
Why are Americans arguing about this when they already have so much control over global tech? 😅 Meanwhile in India, we're just trying to figure out how AI will affect our BPO jobs and small businesses. But I get Sacks' fear - Look how China's social credit system works. We should learn from that. Govt should focus on education and reskilling, not owning companies.
Sacks makes a valid point about the "corporate-government fusion." In India we've seen how PSUs can become inefficient, but also how private monopolies can exploit consumers. Maybe a middle path? Like India's model of having govt as a minority stakeholder in strategic sectors, not 50%. And please, no social credit system - we saw during Covid how even health data can be misused.
Honestly, both are oversimplifying. Sanders says "collective human intelligence" but whose intelligence? Most AI training data is in English from Western sources. Indian languages, knowledge systems are underrepresented. Sacks warns about govt control but private companies already control what we see. The real question is: who decides what AI learns? That's the power. We need democratic oversight, not just ownership debates. 🇮🇳
As someone who works in tech, I see the merit in both arguments. But Sacks comparing this to CCP-style control is a bit much. India has its own issues with internet shutdowns and censorship. We should focus on building our own AI capabilities - like the Bhashini project for language inclusion - rather than copying either US or China models. Let's innovate our own path!
<
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.