The public isn’t checked out. They’re locked out. And when 66% of Americans agree on anything in this country, leaders should pay attention. This isn’t politically impossible. It’s the beginning of a mandate.
AI is built on all of us: every book ever written, every idea ever published, generations of collective human culture. Companies are adding a thin layer of math on top and capturing trillions in value. The public deserves a stake in the wealth and ownership that follows.
We learned with social media what happens when we wait for harm before acting: addiction, polarization, years of damage, and accountability that comes decades too late. With AI, much of the damage will be irreversible. We have to govern upstream, not litigate downstream.
Right now the incentives are to race as fast as possible and serve whoever is paying – advertisers, militaries, corporations, consumers they can addict. You can't fix that by asking CEOs to do better. The structure itself has to change.
A bad future with AI isn't inevitable. Neither is a good one. It's a political choice. Here's what I told POLITICO: www.politico.com/newsletters/...
Both. And they reinforce each other: the ignorance makes the arms race feel more acceptable than it should.
My 5yo daughter Evie asked what my Fortune piece is about.
"We need to change what AI companies get money for. And have that decided by everyone. Because currently, companies can get money for hurting the world."
Her: “Wait, we give people money for hurting the world? We should do the opposite.”
66% of Americans support citizen panels helping set AI rules.
Trump voters, Biden voters, swing voters: nearly identical numbers. When was the last time that happened?
Here’s how that would work in practice: oneproject.org/how-to-make-...
@beyer.house.gov @eryk.bsky.social
The White House wants to let the companies sort it out. We know how that ends.
The question is whether we demand democratic governance before AI goes the way of social media.
Fortune op-ed: fortune.com/2026/03/29/r...
I know a lot of people on here are working on AI governance, deliberative democracy, and participatory tech. Genuinely want to hear what resonates and what you'd push back on.
The White House wants to let the companies sort it out. We know how that ends.
The question is whether we demand democratic governance before AI goes the way of social media.
Fortune op-ed: fortune.com/2026/03/29/r...
And taken to its full conclusion: the public should hold ownership stakes in the companies reshaping the economy. Not through government takeover — through democratic governance, like public airwaves and public waterways.
If AI is going to generate trillions of dollars of new wealth, the public should control how that wealth gets spent.
66% of Americans support citizen panels helping set AI rules.
That number holds across Trump voters, Biden voters, and swing voters.
People aren't apathetic. They're locked out.
Think voluntary jury duty: everyday people, given extensive context and facilitation, setting binding rules and goals. They actually work.
"Citizens' assemblies" sound utopian until you see the track record.
Ireland used them to break decades of deadlock on abortion and marriage equality. They're already shaping AI policy in Taiwan, the UK, and Belgium.
Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, Demis Hassabis, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg all face the same trap: if I don't move fast, a competitor will.
They're right. Which is exactly why the public — not any individual company — needs to set the rules.
I made the case in Fortune this week: bit.ly/4uZad2v
I helped build Facebook. I watched it become a machine for addicting people. Because addiction was more profitable.
Now the same logic is driving AI. I wrote about what we do about it. 🧵