AI billionaires want the profits without the responsibility. This breakdown challenges self-policing, public subsidies, and the push to make ordinary people absorb corporate risk.
PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUBSCRIBER TODAY
We make our newsletters and videos free because everyone deserves the truth, regardless of their ability to pay. To counter the lies of the billionaire and corporate media, we must reach as many Americans as possible. We don’t need unlimited funds, but we rely entirely on small-dollar grassroots support to keep going. Please become a paid subscriber today so we can keep flooding the zone with the truth. We can’t do this without you.
Summary
AI billionaires should bear responsibility for the systems they sell and the infrastructure they build. One must challenge an economic arrangement that lets corporations collect the profits while communities absorb pollution, infrastructure costs, and technological failures.
- Corporate responsibility cannot stop at the software interface. Companies should test their products, limit dangerous capabilities, and address foreseeable harm.
- Working families should not subsidize the AI boom. Data center operators should cover the infrastructure and resource costs their facilities create.
-
Communities deserve control over development. Public officials should scrutinize utility agreements, environmental impacts, and proposed tax giveaways.
-
AI’s technical complexity strengthens the case for oversight. NIST documents risks including fabricated information and attacks that redirect AI agents.
-
Voluntary promises cannot replace public power. Independent enforcement, transparent reporting, and meaningful consequences should anchor AI policy.
The progressive demand is straightforward: the corporations that control AI development must shoulder its costs, and the people who live with its consequences must have a meaningful voice.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
AI Billionaires Want the Profits. Working People Get the Risk.
AI billionaires have no legitimate claim to a business model that privatizes the rewards and distributes the damage. When companies sell powerful software, demand enormous infrastructure investments, and ask communities to accommodate their expansion, they assume responsibilities that no marketing campaign should erase. Working families should not become the unpaid insurers of Silicon Valley’s ambitions.
On September 29, President Donald Trump announced voluntary AI standards following a meeting with technology executives. The agreement includes commitments involving independent auditors and preventing unintended access to technical systems. Those commitments describe responsibilities that should already accompany the sale of consequential technology. Their voluntary character leaves the central political question unresolved: who can compel compliance when public safety conflicts with profit?
That question reaches directly into household budgets. Data centers require electricity, transmission capacity, and cooling infrastructure. A 2024 Department of Energy–backed report estimated that they consumed 4.4 percent of American electricity in 2023 and projected a share between 6.7 and 12 percent by 2028. Those figures cover data centers broadly, including facilities supporting AI. They establish the scale of the infrastructure challenge.
Public officials should require developers to fund the additional capacity their projects require, disclose resource use, and provide financial guarantees against abandoned investments. Communities deserve transparent agreements before construction begins. There should be no tax abatements. Corporate wealth creates no entitlement to subsidized expansion while residents struggle to keep the lights on.
The administration’s own March ratepayer pledge says participating companies should pay for new electricity supply and infrastructure. That statement provides a standard against which the public can judge actual decisions. A signature does not establish that households received protection. Regulators need enforceable agreements, transparent rates, and the authority to reject arrangements that transfer corporate costs to families.
Environmental justice belongs at the center of that scrutiny. In April, the NAACP and allied organizations challenged an air permit for an xAI affiliate’s 41-turbine power project in Southaven, Mississippi, citing threats to surrounding communities. Their challenge illustrates who must organize when technology’s physical footprint reaches people’s homes. The promise of digital progress does not diminish a neighborhood’s claim to breathable air.
Software accountability requires equal seriousness. Generative AI can produce convincing falsehoods, and agents can encounter malicious instructions embedded in material they process. NIST’s research documents these problems. A company that grants a system access to sensitive information or consequential tools should demonstrate why those permissions are justified and how it will contain foreseeable failures.
Technical complexity does not excuse reckless deployment. It demands testing under hostile conditions, limited permissions, independent review, and mechanisms to stop harmful actions. Responsibility should follow the decisions that create and distribute risk. Developers, vendors, and deploying organizations should each answer for their own conduct. Ordinary users cannot reasonably inspect hidden systems or compensate for every undisclosed design weakness.
Congress should establish clear duties, effective remedies, and public oversight with the resources to enforce them. Rules should address demonstrable harms and scale with risk, preventing dominant firms from turning compliance into a barrier against smaller competitors. Workers, affected communities, and independent researchers deserve seats at the table where those rules take shape.
The public already contributes the infrastructure, knowledge, labor, and institutions that make technological development possible. It owes AI billionaires no additional subsidy in the form of surrendered rights. A democratic society should insist that useful innovation improve ordinary lives, that corporations pay the costs they create, and that wealth never purchase an exemption from accountability.
