Companies without commitments

The OpenAI recap­i­tal­iza­tion is so gross (although we can pause to appre­ciate the sleek euphemism). Any/all argu­ments that the new struc­ture max­i­mizes the ben­efit for the non-profit, or indeed for humanity, simmer neatly down to: “but … we wanted the money!”

The company’s agreement with the state of California does con­tain useful provisions, and, honestly, I under­stand why the attorney general’s office was inclined to do this deal. But it’s still gross, and it is evidence, again, that the com­pa­nies at the com­manding heights of tech simply cannot — will not–make and keep com­mit­ments.

What do I mean by that? Simply that these com­pa­nies don’t care about any­thing in particular, other than growth — the col­o­niza­tion and con­sol­i­da­tion of human attention. Meta is exem­plary in this regard, as its apps morph and blur, casting off modes, whole forms of media, like a snake shed­ding skins. They put a TikTok in your Instagram! They’ll do it again, what­ever comes next. AI-synthesized videos, whole insane dreamworlds, coming soon to a nav button near you.

How strange, to imagine that what you are—what kind of company–and what you make—what kind of products — might feel so optional, so temporary; that your only guide — your single invi­o­late principle — might be what you want, which is always: more.

Among tech com­pa­nies, Apple might be the exception, because I believe it does have long­standing com­mit­ments — to pri­vacy, to accessibility — which it main­tains even when they are inconvenient. This shouldn’t really be cause for commendation — making and keeping com­mit­ments is the base­line for moral life, not some great achievement — but in this scene, Apple stands out.