New technologies perceived as job-destroying, like AI, face significant public and regulatory risk. A powerful defense is to make the general public owners of the technology. When people have a financial stake in a technology's success, they are far more likely to defend it than fight against it.

A ban on superintelligence is self-defeating because enforcement would require a sanctioned, global government body to build the very technology it prohibits in order to "prove it's safe." This paradoxically creates a state-controlled monopoly on the most powerful technology ever conceived, posing a greater risk than a competitive landscape.

The current trend toward closed, proprietary AI systems is a misguided and ultimately ineffective strategy. Ideas and talent circulate regardless of corporate walls. True, defensible innovation is fostered by openness and the rapid exchange of research, not by secrecy.

The belief that AI development is unstoppable ignores history. Global treaties successfully limited nuclear proliferation, phased out ozone-depleting CFCs, and banned blinding lasers. These precedents prove that coordinated international action can steer powerful technologies away from the worst outcomes.

In its largest user study, OpenAI's research team frames AI not just as a product but as a fundamental utility, stating its belief that "access to AI should be treated as a basic right." This perspective signals a long-term ambition for AI to become as integral to society as electricity or internet access.

The most profound innovations in history, like vaccines, PCs, and air travel, distributed value broadly to society rather than being captured by a few corporations. AI could follow this pattern, benefiting the public more than a handful of tech giants, especially with geopolitical pressures forcing commoditization.

The choice between open and closed-source AI is not just technical but strategic. For startups, feeding proprietary data to a closed-source provider like OpenAI, which competes across many verticals, creates long-term risk. Open-source models offer "strategic autonomy" and prevent dependency on a potential future rival.

A common misconception is that Chinese AI is fully open-source. The reality is they are often "open-weight," meaning training parameters (weights) are shared, but the underlying code and proprietary datasets are not. This provides a competitive advantage by enabling adoption while maintaining some control.

Attempting to hoard technology like a state secret is counterproductive for the US. The nation's true competitive advantage has always been its open society, which enables broad participation and bottom-up innovation. Competing effectively, especially in AI, means leaning into this openness, not trying to emulate closed, top-down systems.