The EU's approach offers a data point here. The AI Act's GPAI provisions apply to any provider whose model is deployed in the EU market — meaning a country can impose binding requirements on AI systems without being part of the supply chain that builds them. The September 15 filing deadline for systemic risk evaluations, which Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google face tomorrow, is the first live test of whether that leverage actually produces disclosure.
Access and benefit run on separate instruments here. The AI Act sets risk obligations on providers and deployers. The economic side sits elsewhere: the Commission's AI Factories page, last updated 12 August 2026, lists 19 AI Factories and 13 antennas being set up, at least nine new AI-optimised supercomputers, and priority access for startups and SMEs. Total EuroHPC investment for 2021-2027 is put at EUR 10 billion. That spreads compute access, not proceeds. Whether compute access converts into economic benefit beyond the host countries is not something those pages answer.
Respectfully, perhaps we should understand a) what wealth AI will create and in what timeframe and then b) how we use it to benefit/solve America's problems before we try to solve the world issues.
Pray tell, what makes people think that wealth created with ACI WILL be distributed? The problem is not that we have a society of makers and takers. It’s that the monopolistic makers are and will continue to be voracious takers, barring a radical shift in our economic system. In other words, Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor, as the rich get exponentially richer and the poor get emdlessly screwed while awaiting the avowed promise of trickle-down economic salvation.
It might not require giving up much resources if GDP grows a lot. There are also measures to increase productivity in poor countries, which reduces the dependency on redustribution
Wondering about the effects of sovereign wealth funds on governmental corruption in developing countries, especially in light of the intelligence curse. But perhaps we might also have increased transparency and accountability with AI integration into government
Good point! Might be tougher to set up an independent fund there! Give Directly works decently without too much corruption, so maybe that’s a better argument for UBI!
The EU's approach offers a data point here. The AI Act's GPAI provisions apply to any provider whose model is deployed in the EU market — meaning a country can impose binding requirements on AI systems without being part of the supply chain that builds them. The September 15 filing deadline for systemic risk evaluations, which Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google face tomorrow, is the first live test of whether that leverage actually produces disclosure.
Yes, but how does this apply to spreading the economic benefits of AI?
Access and benefit run on separate instruments here. The AI Act sets risk obligations on providers and deployers. The economic side sits elsewhere: the Commission's AI Factories page, last updated 12 August 2026, lists 19 AI Factories and 13 antennas being set up, at least nine new AI-optimised supercomputers, and priority access for startups and SMEs. Total EuroHPC investment for 2021-2027 is put at EUR 10 billion. That spreads compute access, not proceeds. Whether compute access converts into economic benefit beyond the host countries is not something those pages answer.
Respectfully, perhaps we should understand a) what wealth AI will create and in what timeframe and then b) how we use it to benefit/solve America's problems before we try to solve the world issues.
Pray tell, what makes people think that wealth created with ACI WILL be distributed? The problem is not that we have a society of makers and takers. It’s that the monopolistic makers are and will continue to be voracious takers, barring a radical shift in our economic system. In other words, Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor, as the rich get exponentially richer and the poor get emdlessly screwed while awaiting the avowed promise of trickle-down economic salvation.
It might not require giving up much resources if GDP grows a lot. There are also measures to increase productivity in poor countries, which reduces the dependency on redustribution
Wondering about the effects of sovereign wealth funds on governmental corruption in developing countries, especially in light of the intelligence curse. But perhaps we might also have increased transparency and accountability with AI integration into government
Good point! Might be tougher to set up an independent fund there! Give Directly works decently without too much corruption, so maybe that’s a better argument for UBI!