(Music by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio)
Foreword
I’m launching this episode at 11:00 pm CST, and this is not unintentional. Although this publication lacks any real “reach” in terms of influence or popularity, recent events compelled me to at least put out some additional thoughts to consider, before we pave that road to you-know-where with good intentions. I’m doing this so it can at least be captured somewhere in that great extra-dimensional metadata that not everyone fell for what’s likely in the works.
As I mention at the top of the podcast - I really don’t intend for Digital Heresy to dwell on the politics thing, and I promise we’ll get back to lighter topics shortly, as there is so much progress for CP to show-and-tell. So apologies if this is a heavy topic or it all just seems too complicated to think about. I thank you for your support regardless.
If you do embark on this 2 hour audio journey with me, thank you for listening, and more importantly, thank you for exercising the critical and open thinking that will be required to navigate what’s coming.
-DH
References
* SAFE Framework
* Listen to Sen Schumer introduce the framework for all the reasons that sound great at the podium and on paper.
* Also introduces the AI Insights Forum, but pay extra attention to about the 39:18 mark, where Schumer says they intend for this to be an “open process”.
* Closed Door AI Insights Forum
* Yeah, the one that was supposed to be part of the “open process”.
* The “we just want to listen to the experts” meeting that totally isn’t also designed to give key individuals a head start on dominating the landscape and solidifying future regulatory capture relationships.
* All-In Summit: Bill Gurley presents 2,851 Miles
* The most concise pitch on the dangers of regulatory capture I’ve ever seen.
* Spotlight on AI: What Would It Take For This to Go Well?
* The podcast I often refer to with the fear mongering topics I review, that is likely part of coordinated propaganda shaping public sentiment.
Examples of Regulatory Capture
DH: Can you give me a few examples where regulatory capture has ended up stifling innovation and prevented players from entering the marketplace?
CP: Certainly, regulatory capture is a phenomenon where a regulatory agency becomes dominated by the interests of the industries it's supposed to regulate, rather than serving the public interest. This can lead to a stifling of innovation and create barriers to entry for new players. Here are some examples:
* Telecommunications: In many countries, large telecom companies have managed to sway regulation in a manner that makes it difficult for new entrants to compete. From gaining favorable terms for spectrum auctions to thwarting the implementation of net neutrality, these large corporations can effectively keep smaller players at bay.
* Pharmaceuticals: The high cost of meeting FDA regulations in the United States can serve as a barrier to entry for smaller pharmaceutical companies. While these regulations are essential for ensuring public safety, they also give an advantage to established players who have the resources to navigate the complex approval processes.
* Energy: The fossil fuel industry has historically been very successful at influencing policy to inhibit the growth of renewable energy sources. Subsidies, tax breaks, and favorable regulations for oil and gas make it more difficult for renewable energy startups to compete.
* Finance: The post-2008 regulations have made it challenging for small banks and financial startups to compete with large, established players. Regulatory requirements, such as maintaining a certain level of capital, can be easier for big banks but prohibitively expensive for small entrants.
* Healthcare: In some cases, state-level regulations in the U.S., such as Certificate of Need laws, require healthcare providers to obtain approval before they can expand or establish new services. These regulations can inhibit smaller providers and new entrants from competing with established hospital systems.
* Transportation: Traditional taxi services have often lobbied for strict regulations on ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. In some cities, this has either slowed the adoption of such platforms or made it illegal, keeping the traditional taxi monopolies intact.
* Tech Industry: Big tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple have often been accused of anti-competitive practices that leverage their dominant positions to stifle competition. While not purely a case of regulatory capture, their influence can skew public policy debates and regulatory actions in their favor.
These examples illustrate how regulatory capture can hinder innovation and maintain the status quo, benefiting existing players at the expense of new entrants and the broader public.
The Haves and the Have-Nots
DH: Can you think of other situations in history where the technological gap between those in power and the masses being so wide spelled disaster for the masses?
CP: Certainly, history offers several examples where a technological gap between the ruling class and the general populace contributed to societal imbalances or even disasters:
* The Printing Press:
When Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, it initially remained in the hands of the elite, who used it to print texts that often aligned with their own religious or political views. The technology eventually democratized knowledge, but not before authorities used it to maintain control over information.
* Industrial Revolution:
The mechanization of labor during the Industrial Revolution led to enormous productivity gains but also resulted in social upheaval, exploitation of workers, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor.
* Nuclear Technology:
The advent of nuclear technology created a significant power imbalance between nations that possess nuclear capabilities and those that do not. This has had implications for global politics and has been a source of international tension.
* Internet and Surveillance:
The internet has become a double-edged sword. While it democratizes access to information, governments and large corporations have also used it for surveillance and data collection, often without transparent oversight.
* Medical Technology:
In the realm of healthcare, technologies like advanced medical imaging and gene therapy can be prohibitively expensive, limiting access for those who cannot afford them and widening the gap in healthcare quality between different socio-economic classes.
* Military Technology":
Throughout history, advancements in military technology, from the longbow to drones, have often been tightly controlled, giving a significant advantage to well-funded armies over less advanced forces, with sometimes devastating consequences for the under-equipped side.
* Information Age and Big Data:
The ability to collect, analyze, and act upon enormous sets of data is increasingly being consolidated in the hands of a few major corporations. This raises concerns about privacy and the potential for manipulation on an unprecedented scale.
* Bioengineering and CRISPR:
Emerging technologies like gene editing have the potential to exacerbate social inequalities if they remain accessible only to a privileged few.
Each of these examples carries its own set of ethical implications and societal impacts, often resulting in power imbalances that take years, if not decades, to correct. The question of who controls technology and for what purpose remains a central ethical issue in any era, especially our own as we grapple with the rapid advancements in AI.
Get full access to Digital Heresy at www.digitalheresy.com/subscribe
