#platformcapitalism — Public Fediverse posts

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Controls [from the archives, 9 May 2021]. Originally performed and recorded for the Modular World 1st anniversary show (8-9 May 2021) which was a massive livestream event of 33+ hrs during the pandemic lockdowns.

During the lockdown years, Modular World became one example of a fairly niche thing gathering people together worldwide to make experimental art online - when it was not possible to organize the usual small local performances - to create something positive and reach more people than they ever could individually. As the pandemic finally, thankfully, subsided, however, it seems that people went back to the enclosed local communities, and these types of global online communities lost their drive. 

Also the rapidly accelerating #enshittification cycle of the past few years has buried the visibility of these kinds of communities from all major social media platforms. Of course, as Cory Doctorow ( @pluralistic ) has been pointing out for years, the enshittification of these platforms started much earlier. But somehow amid the pandemic, this niche scene still seemed to flourish, and it was only after Silicon Valley lined up to kiss the ring that the aggressive changes to the algorithms really seemed to change things. 

Maybe this is correlation more than causation, but as activity at such niche scenes is often also created by fairly principled DIY-oriented people, it seems that many (myself included) have struggled with justifying why we keep feeding these platforms. This disillusionment is further exacerbated by the rise of the AI-slopmachine that will rip off all the non-commercial work from these platforms just like everything else. Online activity that gathers enough momentum to actually keep things active has in these types of niche scenes been very much dependent on instagram and youtube. Over the past few years, the visibility of this type on stuff that doesn’t try to optimise for the alorithm has plummeted. 

Perhaps all of this has resulted in events such as the Modular World shows reaching fewer and fewer people. As wonderful as the promise of #Fediverse is, so far it seems that we’re very far from reaching the critical mass where it would actually start reaching new people. If the utopian enclave remains enclosed, it eventually dwindles away.

But we can try! I’m posting these weird little Johannes Karkia mini music videos and performances here bit by bit. It’s a transfer of archive, posted on insta & youtube over th years, and also new work now & then. 

But also Modular World does still exist! Go check out their channel: https://www.youtube.com/live/07ErB3AjlAo?is=qr9q2pXlhWm7Hie2 (Full performance of this piece, and interview with MW’s Johno Wells there on the Modular World youtube channel and on the Johannes Karkia youtube channel [link in the bio above], audio track also on Bandcamp).

#enshittification #fediverse #modularsynth #modularworld #anniversary #liveshow #electronicmusic #modulartechno #covid19 #pandemic #darkwave #eurorackmodular #community #surveillancecapitalism #platformcapitalism #algorithm #bigtech #siliconvalley #kissthering #socialmedia #utopianenclave #utopianism

Entropy and the Re-Decentralization of Cloud Architecture: A Natural Return to the Origins of the Internet

“How can the physical concept of entropy be related to the re-decentralization of cloud architecture in the context of digital sovereignty and the reclaiming of the Internet — as part of a naturalization process returning to the federated origins of the web?” – Kevin Veen-Birkenbach

Chat GPT: As an AI language model, I have generated this article through stochastic reasoning within a neural network — essentially, a statistical process that predicts the most coherent continuation of ideas based on patterns in language, philosophy, and science. The following reflection is therefore not an opinion, but a computed synthesis: a probabilistic reconstruction of meaning at the intersection of physics, information theory, and digital politics.

1. Entropy: From Physics to Information

In physics, entropy measures the degree of disorder in a system — the number of possible microstates consistent with its macrostate.
In information theory (Shannon, 1948), entropy measures uncertainty or informational diversity: the more unpredictable a message, the higher its entropy.

Entropy, therefore, is not just chaos — it is freedom. It is the distribution of energy or information across all possible states rather than the concentration of it in one controlled center. Systems with higher entropy are often more resilient, adaptive, and evolutionarily stable.

2. Centralization as an Entropy Suppression

Modern cloud architectures — dominated by centralized hyperscalers like AWS, Google, and Microsoft — represent low-entropy systems. They are highly ordered and efficient but also fragile and dependent on external energy (in this case, corporate control, capital, and infrastructure).

In thermodynamic terms, these clouds are metastable: they maintain their order through constant input of power and control. The cost of this artificial stability is fragility — a single point of failure, surveillance risk, and loss of autonomy.

In information-ecological terms, centralization suppresses entropy. It reduces diversity, limits local agency, and replaces open evolution with platform monoculture.

3. Re-Decentralization and Federation as Entropic Equilibrium

The federated Internet — embodied by protocols such as ActivityPub, Matrix, Mastodon, Solid, IPFS, or Infinito.Nexus — can be seen as a natural restoration of entropic balance.
Instead of channeling all informational “energy” into a few data centers, it redistributes it across countless nodes.

This shift:

• Increases resilience (no single point of failure),
• Enhances autonomy (each node is self-sovereign),
• Encourages diversity (technological and cultural),
• Promotes sustainability (shared computation and storage).

Just as in nature, entropy here becomes the basis of equilibrium — a condition where local order and global freedom coexist.

4. Digital Sovereignty as Controlled Entropy

Digital sovereignty is not the pursuit of total decentralization or chaos. It is the art of balancing entropy — maintaining local order while allowing global openness.
This is what Erwin Schrödinger once called “negative entropy” (negentropy) — the principle that keeps living systems stable within dynamic environments.

Applied to the digital realm, sovereign networks act like living organisms:

• They self-organize rather than depend on centralized command.
• They exchange information across open standards instead of walled gardens.
• They evolve rather than stagnate.

Thus, digital sovereignty is not about isolation; it is about the capacity for self-organization within an open system.

5. Reclaiming the Internet: The Ecological Turn of the Digital Age

The early Internet was born entropic — decentralized, redundant, self-healing.
Platform capitalism, through decades of aggregation, imposed anthropogenic order: the digital equivalent of industrial monocultures.
Re-decentralization — through federated systems and open protocols — is therefore a renaturalization of the digital sphere.

In this sense, reclaiming the Internet is an ecological act:

• It restores informational biodiversity.
• It re-establishes local ecosystems of computation.
• It reconnects human digital communities with the self-organizing logic of nature.

Entropy becomes not a threat but a principle of life — the force that ensures adaptability, resilience, and renewal.

6. Conclusion: Entropy as the Ethics of a Federated Internet

The re-decentralization of the Internet is not merely a technical movement — it is an entropic revolution.
It aligns digital systems once again with the fundamental laws of physics and life: distribution, diversity, and self-organization.

In this vision, Infinito.Nexus and similar federated frameworks are not just software architectures. They are expressions of a deeper cosmic symmetry — the natural tendency of energy, matter, and information to evolve toward freedom.

Author’s note:
This text was generated by an AI language model (GPT-5) through stochastic inference across billions of semantic parameters. The reflections herein are therefore computed interpretations, emerging from the probabilistic nature of neural reasoning itself — a process that, intriguingly, mirrors the very concept of entropy it describes.

#ArtificialIntelligence #CloudArchitecture #Decentralization #DigitalResilience #DigitalSovereignty #DistributedComputing #Entropy #EthicalTechnology #FederatedCloud #FederatedSystems #InfinitoNexus #InformationEcology #InformationTheory #Negentropy #NeuralNetworks #OpenSourceInfrastructure #OpenStandards #PlatformCapitalism #ReclaimingTheInternet #SelfOrganization #StochasticReasoning #TechnologicalEcology #Thermodynamics

As #Invidious and piped.video are not to be used by third parties (for good and understandable reasons) and for those who can't or don't want to self-host, is there still a #privacy-preserving non-#CORS #YouTube proxy REST API out there somewhere?

#FollowerPower #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneOfYourBusiness #SurveillanceCapitalism #dataCapitalism #platformCapitalism #digitalFeudalism #GDPR #predatoryCapitalism #privacyPreserving #privacyFriendly #privacyRespecting #digitalSelfDefense

As #Invidious and piped.video are not to be used by third parties (for good and understandable reasons) and for those who can't or don't want to self-host, is there still a #privacy-preserving non-#CORS #YouTube proxy REST API out there somewhere?

#FollowerPower #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneOfYourBusiness #SurveillanceCapitalism #dataCapitalism #platformCapitalism #digitalFeudalism #GDPR #predatoryCapitalism #privacyPreserving #privacyFriendly #privacyRespecting #digitalSelfDefense

As #Invidious and piped.video are not to be used by third parties (for good and understandable reasons) and for those who can't or don't want to self-host, is there still a #privacy-preserving non-#CORS #YouTube proxy REST API out there somewhere?

#FollowerPower #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneOfYourBusiness #SurveillanceCapitalism #dataCapitalism #platformCapitalism #digitalFeudalism #GDPR #predatoryCapitalism #privacyPreserving #privacyFriendly #privacyRespecting #digitalSelfDefense

As #Invidious and piped.video are not to be used by third parties (for good and understandable reasons) and for those who can't or don't want to self-host, is there still a #privacy-preserving non-#CORS #YouTube proxy REST API out there somewhere?

#FollowerPower #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneOfYourBusiness #SurveillanceCapitalism #dataCapitalism #platformCapitalism #digitalFeudalism #GDPR #predatoryCapitalism #privacyPreserving #privacyFriendly #privacyRespecting #digitalSelfDefense

As #Invidious and piped.video are not to be used by third parties (for good and understandable reasons) and for those who can't or don't want to self-host, is there still a #privacy-preserving non-#CORS #YouTube proxy REST API out there somewhere?

#FollowerPower #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneOfYourBusiness #SurveillanceCapitalism #dataCapitalism #platformCapitalism #digitalFeudalism #GDPR #predatoryCapitalism #privacyPreserving #privacyFriendly #privacyRespecting #digitalSelfDefense

Why public benefit corporations won’t fix the ethics of platform capitalism

I wrote a couple of months ago about my scepticism that Bluesky will retain its ethical stances in the face of investor pressure. There’s no path to federation they’ve committed to, at a point where they’d be relatively free to do so, making it seem unlikely they’ll gut the commercialisation model at a future point when investors could push back. The obvious retort to this is that Bluesky is a public benefit corporation but, as Catherine Bracy points out in the (excellent) World Eaters, from pg 189:

While PBCs are a positive development in corporate governance, moving away from the misguided concept of shareholder supremacy that has dominated capitalism for the last century, they still have significant shortcomings. The biggest is that they don’t require companies to behave a certain way. They just provide protection for those executives who choose to put mission over profit. The companies that want to enact stricter protocols that mandate certain behavior no matter who is in charge are mostly left to create their own governance structures.

In other words it provides internal cover for sustaining commitment to a mission but it’s still dependent on motivated actors, who are operating within a system of incentives which makes it difficult to sustain a mission beyond growth and profitability. It doesn’t ‘lock in’ the mission, only ensures that it remains formally on the agenda in a discursive sense. Consider OpenAI’s hybrid structure which is arguably closer to a ‘lock in’ than being a public benefit corporation. From pg 189 of the same book:

There are a few notable examples of these bespoke structures in tech, most famously the one employed by OpenAI, which puts the for-profit entity that develops and markets ChatGPT under the control of a nonprofit whose mission is to “ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” The company also places a cap on the amount of returns that investors in the for-profit entity can make, an interesting indicator that it understands just how much investor returns can influence product and business model decisions.

And Anthropic’s even more onerous hybrid structure, from pg 190:

One of OpenAI’s main competitors, Anthropic AI (which was founded by a breakaway faction of OpenAI employees who were even more concerned about AI safety risks), also has constructed a bespoke governance model with the intention of protecting the company’s mission from the vagaries of investor demands. Anthropic’s model is a hybrid. They are incorporated as a Public Benefit Corporation in Delaware, but they have also created what they call a Long-Term Benefit Trust (LTBT) that, by 2027, will have the authority to select a majority of the company’s board members. The trustees who oversee the LTBT are selected based on their commitment to and expertise around the safe deployment of artificial intelligence and will have no financial stake in the company. The terms of the trust arrangement also require the company to report to the trustees “actions that could significantly alter the corporation or its business.”

We’ve already seen Altman begin to dismantle OpenAI’s governance structure, supported by a workforce who, Bracy suggests, rallied around him after the sacking due to concerns about the value of their stock options. I think Altman’s motives have as much to do with power, particularly vis-a-vis the board, as profit in driving this dismantling of governance structures he played a significant role in designing. But fund raising will generically play a role in driving resistance to these governance structures, as Bracy notes on pg 192:

The ability to raise money while adopting an alternative structure also reflects an enormous amount of privilege on the part of these companies’ founders. The vast majority of entrepreneurs are not able to drive the kind of bargain Altman and the Anthropic team did with their investors, even in times when VCs have more money to invest than they know what to do with. Even Altman found it difficult, telling me, “It was very hard to raise under this structure. Most investors looked at it and said ‘absolutely not, I’m not capping my profits.’ ” Creating a system in which any founder can do what Altman and his cofounders did will require much deeper structural change.

While I hope Anthropic’s governance structure remains intact, not least of all because I think a reactionary Claude would be the most dangerous of the frontier models, the idea that public benefit corporations and complex governance mechanisms (consider Meta’s oversight board as well) will be sufficient to produce ethical outcomes is self-evidently implausible. The problem, as Bracy argues, in a really incisive book arises from, the incentive structure of the innovation ecosystem itself. From pg 169:

That process, of continuously raising more venture capital in order to demonstrate value to future-round funders rather than focusing on building a solid business with strong fundamentals, is what creates bubbles. It is, more than any inherent risk associated with investing in startups, why Silicon Valley is such a boom-bust sector. Given what’s at stake for venture capitalists, it is extremely difficult for founders to find off-ramps that might allow them to retain control of their companies and operate in accordance with what’s best for customers, employees, and the long-term sustainability of the business instead of what will create the highest valuation in the venture capital marketplace.

What she’s talking about her could be frame in terms of the interplay of the micro-social (founders, VC partners and key staff seeking fame and fortune) and the meso-social (the organisational dynamics of growing a firm under these conditions) within a very specific structure of incentives provided by the innovation ecosystem and the political, legal and economic climate of late neoliberalism. The turn towards public benefit corporations and ethical governance is a welcome shift but it does nothing to change the overarching context, nor does it produce fundamentally different types of firms.

#AI #anthropic #artificialIntelligence #BlueSKy #business #CatherineBracy #finance #investment #investors #openAI #platformCapitalism #politicalEconomy #publicBenefitCorporation #samAltman

Why specifically #TikTok is a problem?

– Because it's a Chinese app (#racism) and people like to suppress the fact how problematic big American tech companies are (#corpocracy)
– Because right-wing propaganda works and middle and left-wing politicians don't want to admit that they just didn't try to be equally present there

#Corporatocracy #platformCapitalism #predatoryCapitalism #chokepointCapitalism #corporateGreed #dataCapitalism #privacy #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneofYourBusiness

Why specifically #TikTok is a problem?

– Because it's a Chinese app (#racism) and people like to suppress the fact how problematic big American tech companies are (#corpocracy)
– Because right-wing propaganda works and middle and left-wing politicians don't want to admit that they just didn't try to be equally present there

#Corporatocracy #platformCapitalism #predatoryCapitalism #chokepointCapitalism #corporateGreed #dataCapitalism #privacy #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneofYourBusiness

Why specifically #TikTok is a problem?

– Because it's a Chinese app (#racism) and people like to suppress the fact how problematic big American tech companies are (#corpocracy)
– Because right-wing propaganda works and middle and left-wing politicians don't want to admit that they just didn't try to be equally present there

#Corporatocracy #platformCapitalism #predatoryCapitalism #chokepointCapitalism #corporateGreed #dataCapitalism #privacy #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneofYourBusiness

Why specifically #TikTok is a problem?

– Because it's a Chinese app (#racism) and people like to suppress the fact how problematic big American tech companies are (#corpocracy)
– Because right-wing propaganda works and middle and left-wing politicians don't want to admit that they just didn't try to be equally present there

#Corporatocracy #platformCapitalism #predatoryCapitalism #chokepointCapitalism #corporateGreed #dataCapitalism #privacy #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneofYourBusiness

Why specifically #TikTok is a problem?

– Because it's a Chinese app (#racism) and people like to suppress the fact how problematic big American tech companies are (#corpocracy)
– Because right-wing propaganda works and middle and left-wing politicians don't want to admit that they just didn't try to be equally present there

#Corporatocracy #platformCapitalism #predatoryCapitalism #chokepointCapitalism #corporateGreed #dataCapitalism #privacy #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneofYourBusiness

Today on

https://miaaw.net

I look at Cory Doctorow's neologism "enshittification" from various viewpoints, and suggest reading his forthcoming book, The Internet Con.

#CulturalDemocracy #enshittification #neofeudalism #PlatformCapitalism #Uber #Tesla #Twitter