"By organizing, they are insisting that people closest to AI’s development should have a voice in its direction. Listening to them is not just a matter of workplace fairness. It is essential to our ability to govern AI" Ft @js-tan.bsky.social @nataliyan.bsky.social @emilymazo.bsky.social research!
The New York Times@nytimes.com · 3mo ago“Across the tech industry, the people who understand A.I. most intimately — the ones who write its code, train its models and watch its capabilities expand in real time — are increasingly alarmed by what they are building and for whom,” Kate Andrias writes.
![This profound shift in the business model of the firms at the technological frontier has also given rise to a new political dynamic, which we explore in more depth later. To preview briefly, whereas earlier platform firms leveraged their asset-light structure to engage in venue arbitrage, that is, moving operations across borders to evade (or to seek more favorable) tax or legal regimes, cloud firms are physically tethered to specific jurisdictions because of their reliance on massive data center infrastructure. The centrality of fixed assets has inspired important changes in the relationship to the state on the part of leading firms. [begin highlighted section] Rather than regulatory arbitrage, we observe a strategic shift toward accommodation and, with that, the emergence of a new techno-nationalist alliance. This alliance, so clearly on display in the newly cozy relationship between Silicon Valley firms and the second Trump administration, [end highlighted section] is one in which geopolitical and commercial interests come together as the state facilitates rapid data center expansion at home (or in allied countries) while deploying export controls and sanctions to hobble competitors abroad.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2wyqv44lm72vasmddeqjgy72/bafkreievwgwzskn2emjohf4i344u32olcllk6tubqgzpfgpessotghjuia)
