![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/305\/2026\/04\/Discover-the-best-AI-leadership-programs-2.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAI is poised to change our economy, our society, our government, and our way of life.\u00a0 What those changes will be, whether they will be good or bad, and whether the public wants them are open questions.\u00a0 But we are forging ahead with AI anyway.<\/p>\n
At the very least, such an impending upheaval requires reflection and planning.\u00a0 Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI whose release of ChatGPT ignited the AI revolution, has issued a position paper designed to forward\u2013and direct\u2013that discussion entitled Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age:\u00a0 Ideas to Keep People First<\/a>.\u00a0 Here is part of the opening:<\/p>\n In just a few years, AI has progressed from systems capable of fast, narrow tasks to models that can perform general tasks people used to need hours to do. Now, we\u2019re beginning a transition toward superintelligence: AI systems capable of outperforming the smartest humans even when they are assisted by AI. No one knows exactly how this transition will unfold. At OpenAI, we believe we should navigate it through a democratic process that gives people real power to shape the AI future they want, and prepare for a range of possible outcomes while building the capacity to adapt. That\u2019s what this document is for\u2014to start a conversation about governing advanced AI in ways that keep people first.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The document is filled with noble sentiments, expressing a commitment to \u201cdemocracy\u201d and the good of the \u201cpeople,\u201d as well as policy proposals that will protect and advance the AI industry.<\/p>\n Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei discuss the paper for Axios<\/em> in an article entitled\u00a0Behind the Curtain: Sam\u2019s superintelligence New Deal<\/a>.\u00a0 Here is their summary of the highlights:<\/p>\n (1) A Public Wealth Fund. <\/strong>OpenAI proposes giving every American citizen a direct stake in AI-driven economic growth through a nationally managed fund, seeded in part by AI companies themselves, that \u201ccould invest in diversified, long-term assets that capture growth in both AI companies and the broader set of firms adopting and deploying AI.\u201d This is the most radical idea in the document.<\/p>\n (2) Robot taxes. <\/strong>The document floats \u201ctaxes related to automated labor,\u201d and shifting the tax base from payroll toward capital gains and corporate income \u2014 since AI could hollow out the wage-and-payroll revenue that funds Social Security, Medicaid and SNAP.<\/p>\n (3) A four-day workweek.<\/strong>\u00a0OpenAI suggests incentivizing companies and unions to run pilots of 32-hour workweeks at full pay, converting AI-driven efficiency to time back for workers \u2014 an \u201cefficiency dividend.\u201d<\/p>\n (4) \u201cRight to AI.\u201d <\/strong>The plan frames AI access as being as foundational as literacy, electricity and internet \u2014 and says access should be affordable for workers, small businesses, schools, libraries and underserved communities.<\/p>\n (5) Containment playbooks for rogue AI.<\/strong>\u00a0In the most chilling passage, OpenAI acknowledges scenarios where dangerous AI systems \u201ccannot be easily recalled\u201d because they\u2019re autonomous and capable of replicating themselves. Their answer: coordination that includes government.<\/p>\n (6) Auto-triggering safety net. <\/strong>The blueprint envisions tripwires tied to economic data. When AI displacement metrics hit preset thresholds, temporary increases in public support \u2014 unemployment benefits, wage insurance, cash assistance \u2014 automatically kick in. When conditions stabilize, the measures phase out.<\/p>\n Sound good?\u00a0 But the heart of the matter is that Sam Altman and OpenAI are proposing, in the words of the title of their paper, an \u201cIndustrial Policy.\u201d\u00a0 The assumption is that free market capitalism is not sufficient, or that it somehow is inadequate to this new industry.<\/p>\n Industrial policy<\/b> is proactive government-led encouragement and development of specific strategic industries for the growth of all or part of the economy, especially in absence of sufficient private sector investments and participation. . . .<\/p>\n Industrial policies are\u00a0interventionist<\/a>\u00a0measures typical of\u00a0mixed economy<\/a> countries.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A mixed economy<\/a> is defined as \u201can economic system that includes both elements associated with capitalism, such as private businesses, and with socialism, such as nationalized government services.\u201d<\/p>\n As that Wikipedia entry explains, this hybrid of private businesses and a government-controlled economy is characteristic of Fascist economics as well as that of today\u2019s Chinese communism.\u00a0 Also Democratic Socialism, European-style \u201csocial democracy\u201d welfare states, and Keynsian liberal economics.<\/p>\n The OpenAI document has some kind words for capitalism, as one would expect, since so-far the free-market has made tech entrepreneurs billionaires.\u00a0 But it goes on to say that \u201cmarket forces alone aren\u2019t sufficient\u201d for this new industry:<\/p>\n In normal times, the case for letting markets work on their own is strong. Historically, competition, entrepreneurship, and open economic participation have lifted living standards and expanded opportunity. Capitalism, imperfect as it is, remains an effective system for translating human ingenuity into shared prosperity.<\/p>\n But industrial policy can play an important role when market forces alone aren\u2019t sufficient\u2014when new technologies create opportunities and risks that existing institutions aren\u2019t equipped to manage. It can help translate scientific breakthroughs into scaled industries and broad-based economic growth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cExisting institutions\u201d aren\u2019t equipped to handle this new technology, so the existing institutions need to change, which means the government must change them.<\/p>\n Here is what OpenAI wants the government, as well as nongovernmental institutions, to do:<\/p>\n A new industrial policy agenda should use government\u2019s existing toolbox for aligning public and private activities: research funding, workforce development, market-shaping tools, and targeted regulation. But governments should not act alone. Nongovernmental institutions should pilot new approaches, measure what works, and iterate quickly, then governments should reinforce successes by aligning incentives and scaling what works through procurement, regulation, and investment. This public-private collaboration should stave off regulatory capture and centralized control, instead preserving the freedom to innovate while ensuring that the onset of superintelligence isn\u2019t dominated by the most powerful forces in society.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The government is to align public and private activities.\u00a0 Provide research funding.\u00a0 Develop the workplace.\u00a0 Shape the market.\u00a0 Have \u201ctargeted\u201d regulation, but not \u201cregulatory capture\u201d of the AI industry, ensuring its \u201cfreedom.\u201d<\/p>\n The document piously says that the proposed industrial policy must make sure that \u201csuperintelligence isn\u2019t dominated by the most powerful forces in society.\u201d\u00a0 Well, that would be the tech lords who are developing \u201csuperintelligence\u201d and the government that they are enlisting into their service.<\/p>\n If the tech lords really wanted \u201ca democratic process that gives people real power to shape the AI future they want,\u201d they should embrace a free market approach to the new technology.\u00a0 Free markets are governed by supply and demand.\u00a0 If the people do not \u201cdemand\u201d a product, the supply will either wither away or take a different form that conforms to what people demand. If a new technology does not attract enough investment, due to investors not seeing a sufficient profit relative to the development costs, that technology will not flourish or will be taken in a different direction.\u00a0 Under the free market, consumers and investors could say \u201cno\u201d to AI, or \u201cyes\u201d to a much more modest version that helps them rather than hurts them.<\/p>\n Industrial policy uses the government to push through the product no matter what.\u00a0 That requires a powerful, controlling central government that tells people what to do, rather than respecting their free choices.<\/p>\n Republicans used to be the champions of the free market, with Democrats wanting a government-controlled economy.\u00a0 According to the Wikipedia article on Industrial Policy<\/a>, \u201cIn the US, an industrial policy was explicitly presented for the first time by the\u00a0Jimmy Carter\u00a0administration in August 1980, but it was subsequently dismantled with the election of\u00a0Ronald Reagan the following year.\u201d<\/p>\n Today, though, both the Trump administration and its Democratic critics, for all their hostility, agree that the government should control the economy.\u00a0 Democrats tend to want that control to limit what companies\u2013not just AI companies\u2013will be allowed to do.\u00a0 Today\u2019s Republicans tend to be\u00a0 in favor of\u00a0 industrial policy that takes the form of a \u201cpartnership\u201d between corporations and the government.<\/p>\n \u201cThe bottom line\u201d to the \u201cAI New Deal\u201d proposal,\u00a0 according to the Axios article<\/a>, is this:\u00a0 \u201cThe man betting everything on superintelligence is telling the world that this thing is coming so fast, and so hard, that capitalism as we know it won\u2019t be enough. Whether you believe the altruism or see the strategy, the admission alone is historic \u2014 and worth deep reflection.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Illustration via EMediaAI<\/a>, CC by 4.0<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" OpenAI has put out a proposal for an “Industrial Policy”–an alliance between government and the AI industry–designed to create a new economic and political order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1281,"featured_media":90504,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,19,36,44],"tags":[16751,869,18252,18246,18249],"class_list":["post-90349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economics","category-government","category-politics","category-technology","tag-ai-and-economics","tag-free-market-economics","tag-govenment-controlled-economics","tag-industrial-policy","tag-open-ais-industrial-policy-for-the-intelligence-age"],"yoast_head":"\n