In this month of September, “Outside the Box” shifted its focus to the strategic, economic and cultural side of artificial intelligence. Just as no animal brain functions outside the body and therefore the personality it inhabits, AI always thrives and will continue to grow within the political and economic culture that spawns and exploits it. 

Today we return a second time to the controversial interview with Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google we have featured in two previous columns. Schmidt had the original video of this event removed from YouTube after he realized that some of what he said was beyond controversial.

This week, we return to an even more fundamental question raised in that video. Again, we must thank YouTube user Matthew Berman for retrieving the video and offering enlightening comments to clarify Schmidt’s discourse.

Probably the most scandalous moment in the interview is where Schmidt explains the concept of “text-to-action capabilities,” which he claims “will have an impact on the world at a scale that no one understands, yet much bigger than the horrific impact we’ve had by social media.” He provided an example of how this could work even with today’s AI. You can listen to it here. A little later in the talk, he offered some surprising advice about how to handle accusations of theft.

To explore this question, I formulated the following prompt.

“Eric Schmidt recommended a strategy for success: ‘Make me a copy of TikTok, steal all the users, steal all the music, put my preferences in it, produce this program in the next 30 seconds, release it, and in one hour, if it’s not viral, do something different along the same lines.’ He followed up with this remark. ‘If it took off, you’d hire a whole bunch of lawyers to clean up the mess up. But if nobody uses your product, it doesn’t matter that you stole all the content.’ He then significantly adds, ‘and do not quote me.’ Is this an accurate portrayal of Silicon Valley culture?”

Even though ChatGPT typically hedged its bets by insisting that this mindset is not universal, its analysis proved to be morally superior to Schmidt’s.

“Eric Schmidt’s remark captures a certain aggressive, fast-moving approach that is often associated with Silicon Valley, though it may not fully represent the culture. His quote reflects a mindset of rapid iteration, disruption, and a “move fast, break things” ethos, which was famously embodied by early Facebook. The strategy he outlines—a focus on speed, market dominance, and dealing with legal issues later—echoes the way some tech startups operate, where innovation and user acquisition can take precedence over regulatory concerns and ethical considerations.

However, this portrayal is not universally accurate across all of Silicon Valley. While some companies do prioritize growth at all costs, many also invest heavily in legal compliance, ethical standards, and long-term sustainability. In fact, with increasing scrutiny on tech giants and the broader tech industry, more companies are becoming mindful of the consequences of such approaches. The culture varies across different companies and sectors within the tech ecosystem.

Schmidt’s quote can be seen as an extreme representation of the competitive, risk-taking mindset that is sometimes glamorized but is not necessarily the dominant strategy across all of Silicon Valley.”

I continued the conversation with the following prompt:

“Given the importance and the sheer influence Silicon Valley companies have on the economy, the culture and the politics not just of the United States but much of the global economy, shouldn’t anyone who believes in democracy be worried when such trends are revealed?”

“Yes, anyone concerned about democracy should take note when such trends are revealed, especially given the immense influence Silicon Valley companies exert on global economies, cultures, and politics. The ethos of ‘move fast and break things,’ or prioritizing growth and innovation over regulation and ethical concerns, can have significant implications for democratic systems. Here are a few reasons why this can be troubling:

1. **Concentration of Power**: Silicon Valley tech giants like Google, Facebook (Meta), Amazon, and others have amassed enormous economic power, often rivaling or exceeding the influence of entire countries. This concentration of power raises concerns about accountability and whether private corporations might hold too much sway over key aspects of modern life—such as communication platforms, information access, and even political discourse.
2. **Weakening of Democratic Institutions**: Tech companies often operate faster than governments can regulate them, which can lead to a weakening of democratic oversight. When platforms like Facebook or X (formerly Twitter) become critical spaces for public discourse, the decisions about content moderation, algorithmic biases, or the spread of misinformation may lie in the hands of a few unelected corporate executives. This lack of transparency and accountability can erode trust in democratic institutions.
3. **Undermining Local Economies and Laws**: The model of breaking into markets first and dealing with consequences later, as Eric Schmidt suggests, can undermine local laws, regulations, and even economies. For instance, ride-sharing companies like Uber or delivery platforms have disrupted traditional industries without fully integrating into existing regulatory frameworks. This has led to exploitation of labor, environmental degradation, or even tax avoidance, which can destabilize communities and erode the social contract.
4. **Manipulation of Public Opinion**: Companies like Google, Facebook, and YouTube wield significant influence over public opinion by controlling the flow of information. Their algorithms, which prioritize engagement and profit, can amplify polarizing content, misinformation, or even foreign interference, as seen during the 2016 U.S. election. This capacity to shape political narratives can threaten democratic processes and exacerbate divisions in society.
5. **Surveillance and Privacy**: The vast data collection practices of many tech companies pose significant privacy risks. This accumulation of personal data can be used for profit-driven purposes, but also, in some cases, for political manipulation, as exemplified by the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The lack of strong privacy protections erodes individual freedoms and challenges democratic norms around consent and transparency.
6. **Legal Gray Areas**: The idea that legal issues can be ‘cleaned up’ after a product takes off is also troubling from a rule-of-law perspective. If companies prioritize success over following regulations, this undermines the concept of equal treatment under the law. Allowing powerful corporations to navigate legal loopholes or push boundaries without accountability threatens fairness and the democratic process.

Democracy relies on checks and balances, transparency, and accountability. When corporations, especially tech giants, operate with minimal oversight and with a mindset of disruption over responsibility, it can lead to a weakening of democratic norms and institutions.”

All these points have been debated in public, even within government itself. The usual recommended solution consists of proposing legislation to regulate the behavior of the behemoths. But Schmidt imagines the case of a startup. The procedure he describes reflects an awareness of the law, while at the same time envisaging a strategy to neutralize the effect of any law. ChatGPT’s reliance on the concept of “a rule-of-law perspective” fails to acknowledge the real problem. It’s not about regulation, it’s about mindsets.

With this in mind, I continued the discussion.

“We can agree about the rule-of-law perspective and the need for checks and balances in government, but this is about a mindset, a business culture that thrives on the reality of faits accomplis. Is regulation an effective check when it comes to devising a strategy aimed at dominating a marketplace. The historical answer has to be no. Schmidt is right. You establish your position, glean the rewards and then you defend it with an army of lawyers. That’s how the business culture works today. That’s how it is built to work. Regulation will change nothing. So what do you suggest?”

We will publish ChatGPT’s response next week and continue the debate next week. Those of you who are impatient to see it can simply engage in the dialogue with ChatGPT themselves. If you choose to do so, we invite you to compare notes by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are always looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. 

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.