It seems then, debates about (oligarchy-owned) AI-safety are parallel to debates about the safety of cybernetically-planned economies..<p>(If any of you are interested, I think the abstract core of the issue is about the porous boundary between excludability & rivalry*)<p>Since we're doing anti-Soviet puns:<p>1. From the top comment (imho comments are usually more thoughtful than essays :)<p><i>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.</i><p>Is it not enough to tax corporate personhood (or *cough* AI-hood or *cough* useful parrot-cy or <i>cough</i> agen-cy) as a <i>public resource</i>, then?!<p>[Luckily, search engines haven't become sentient.. yet]<p>><i>Stafford Beers’ cybernetic perspective on corporate organization (Beers is the originator of </i>“The purpose of a system is what it does")<p><a href="https://archive.today/latest/https://thetechbubble.substack.com/p/the-phony-comforts-of-useful-idiots/comments" rel="nofollow">https://archive.today/latest/https://thetechbubble.substack....</a><p>2. Also from top comment (<i>Potemkin</i> AI pdf alt link)<p><a href="https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/chapter/3800165/Planetary-Potemkin-AI-The-Humans-Hidden-inside" rel="nofollow">https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/chapter/3...</a><p>* <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/29598" rel="nofollow">https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/29598</a>