Dr. Lewis Z. Liu, CEO and co-founder of Eigen Technologies, a global intelligent document processing (IDP) provider.
Generative AI represents one of the greatest potential changes to society since, well, ever. How should governments manage this? John Locke famously stated that governments must protect their peoples’ right to life, liberty and property. While life and liberty might seem the more threatened by AI, it is actually the third pillar—property—that could precipitate a constitutional crisis, threatening the bedrock of American democracy.
Unlike most of the great political themes of our time, GenAI speaks to both sides of the House and Senate—and the politics will quickly become febrile. As we approach an election this year in the U.S., it becomes clear that the seeds for a right-wing case against AI are entrenched in American values. The right to property (and the right to protect one’s property) is seen as an inalienable constitutional right, recognized by the Founding Fathers in both our Declaration of Independence and in our sacred Constitution. Intellectual property and copyright—a subset of property—is fundamental to the knowledge economy.
If the right to protect one’s intellectual property is degraded, the implications are deeply problematic. The activities of companies in this space may start in this light to look very much like theft. What will it mean for the American civilization if there is no means to protect property?
Now let’s look at the left. Concern is growing that AI spells the end for worker and labor rights. Spurred on by the success of the Hollywood writer’s strike, which focused on pay and creative ownership rights, further unions—particularly in industries that involve patents, including critical industries such as pharmaceuticals and high-value manufacturing—will begin to ask the same valid questions around automation and workers’ rights.
I have said for years that AI could destroy jobs. GenAI products provide a means to destroy jobs—and these products are built on the backs of the work of the people whose livelihoods they are destroying. Can you imagine a message more powerful in the run-up to a 2024 election? In the political landscape of anti-tech sentiment and growing wealth inequality—and the risk that AI will bring about even more extreme wealth inequality—the political left knows that it must take action.
In the judicial sphere, these concerns from the right and left may well be validated and combatted. There are at present several court cases that have been filed by content creators against GenAI companies which could go as far as the Supreme Court, the most high profile being that brought by the New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft. With this level of bipartisan support, a decisive ruling could be reached; maybe even a fabled 9-0 in favor of the plaintiffs. This is surely made more likely by the desire of Chief Justice Roberts to secure a landmark Supreme Court consensus at a time of intense polarization.
But what happens if Congress and the executive branch pursue a different agenda? With increasing concern regarding the “AI arms race,” there are those who wish to secure AI supremacy through government-approved national champions. Indeed, we see Sam Altman and others pushing exceptionally hard to secure regulatory capture here, in an attempt to quash open source. Sadly, we know from history how vulnerable to regulatory capture our political system is. We face a real risk that both congress and the White House will push for laws that favor Big Tech at the expense of smaller tech companies that provide the type of crucial dynamism and innovation that has always driven our economy forward.
If we put all this together, it is clear we could be on the verge of a major constitutional conflict: one where the laws governing AI overly favor big tech but are subsequently deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court due to their violation of property rights. It is not at all clear how this will be resolved. I hope that, ultimately, the Supreme Court will protect the property rights that are fundamental to our society, economy and our very civilization itself.
Being an entrepreneur has taught me the value of building: working with a team of like-minded people, committed to the value of AI and of open-source software, to create something which we genuinely believe can change society for the better. The concept of property is an important part of that; having a real stake in what we’re building encourages me and the business to be agile and dynamic, and create the best product possible.
I can’t imagine how I’d feel if the fruits of my labor were to be used to automate my own job away—and my heart goes out to the Hollywood writers (including a member of my own family) who have put their incomes on the line to defend the right to creative ownership. Hopefully, this can be resolved without putting the future of the American Constitution on the line, but I have no doubt that the issue will continue to surface and reinvent itself for decades to come.
We cannot allow a few big monopolistic players or geopolitical dynamics to threaten what is core to civilization: property rights. We cannot allow what may be one of the biggest transfers of wealth from creators into an even smaller group of players. For those of us working in AI, tech or media, it is therefore our duty to question the intentions and implications of allowing such a powerful technology to fall into an unchecked monopoly.
This means specifically: Question the provenance of the AI models, emphasize AI governance in workflows, and make sure your own IP and copyright is strictly protected in the strongest of terms.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
