On March 13th, OpenAI submitted a response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with ideas for the new AI Action Plan, which intends to “maintain American leadership in AI.” Following Vice President Vance’s words from the Paris AI Action Summit, the incumbent administration aims to “make people more productive, more prosperous, and more free” through AI progression. It also seeks to counterbalance and compete with digital authoritarians, and OpenAI lays out a multi-tiered strategy to support this goal.
I strongly encourage every Gen-Z and Millennial to read it (and other submissions), as technological progression, along with climate change and political competition between digital democracies and digital authoritarians, will shape the decades ahead for these generations and may also impact those that follow. In surveys I conducted back in 2024 on representative samples, 52.9% of U.S. respondents were worried about technological progression. OSTP’s call for stakeholder input, with a deadline of March 15, sought to address these uncertainties through tangible policies.
In this post, I focus on the OpenAI proposal, which offers a robust list of priorities. Much like my concept of Digital Kallipolis, OpenAI—not for the first time, including various posts by Sam Altman, e.g., “Moore’s Law for Everything” (2021)—makes a deliberate effort to envision a better future for all of us. Of course, please keep in mind that this is their vision, and they have the right to promote it—just as civil society has the right to reject it. This is precisely why this moment is so important: it ensures that we, the people, still have a say in the direction of the digital (r)evolution.
Interestingly, OpenAI’s document mentions the concept of “freedom of intelligence,” which, in OpenAI’s vision, will “scale human ingenuity.” OpenAI articulates its vision succinctly—seeing democratic AI as rooted in three pillars: (1) a free market, (2) freedom for developers and users, and (3) preventing governments from using AI tools to amass power and control.
OpenAI also highlights certain strategic advantages of digital authoritarians, who have the ability to “quickly marshal resources,” exercise geopolitical leverage over like-minded nations and vulnerable democracies, and operate in a regulatory environment that is less restrictive than that of digital democracies. Perhaps the dynamic between digital authoritarians and digital democracies will become one of the defining conflicts of our time. And rightly so, the third pillar in OpenAI vision—reminds us that democratic governments may also be tempted to use AI for control—just as corporations might.
The freedom to innovate that OpenAI proposes is not a novel idea. In fact, the legally binding—though not ratified by the United States (only signed in 1979)—International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1966, which came into force on January 3, 1976, stipulates in Article 15(b) the right of everyone “to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.”
Indirectly, OpenAI postulates the concept of the Fourth Generation of Human Rights, a new framework for human rights centered on a partnership between the government and the private sector. Moreover, they suggest, among other initiatives, the need for:
- A National Transmission Highway Act, modeled after the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, but focused on expanding fiber connectivity and energy supply;
- Governmental data digitalization;
- The establishment of AI Economic Zones; and
- An AI Readiness Strategy to ensure a properly trained workforce.
Regarding the latter, as many jobs will likely be lost to the digital (r)evolution, in the short run, such initiatives might create new opportunities, particularly for highly skilled and talented underemployed or unemployed individuals, whose numbers are expected to rise in the coming months and years.
In the piece, OpenAI does not shy away from advocating for its own interests—why would they? For example, they call for “relief from the 781 and counting proposed AI-related bills [introduced] in U.S. states,” such as California’s SB 1047 (“Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act”), which would require big tech companies to test the safety of AI products. The bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 29, 2024, after passing both legislative chambers and gaining support from various groups—including activists and entrepreneurs like Elon Musk.
OpenAI’s corporate advocacy also serves as a stark reminder of why we need a strong digital civil society—so that we, the people, can stand up for our own interests. Unless you’d rather entrust corporations—or the government—to do it for you. Nah…
Back to digital democracies and digital authoritarians—the aspect overlooked by OpenAI is the role of civil society in ensuring that digital democracy can thrive. I write this with a certain bias, as a scholar of digital civil society, but also with the data and wisdom of Robert D. Putnam, Rollin F. Tusalem, Lucy Bernholz, or Larry Diamond—all of whom emphasize the importance of civil society in strengthening democracy. This tradition—to which I subscribe, known as the neo-Tocquevillian, would underscore that digital democracies cannot be robust without strong digital civil societies.
Therefore, in addition to highways and pipelines, policies and action plans—digital democracies must also invest in strengthening digital civil society. All of us should be thinking about what a truly democratic digital public sphere should look like. After all, in what I propose as a new generation of human rights, the balance of power should lie between the people, the private sector, and the government. Yet, when it comes to shaping the future of AI, the voice of the people is not being heard—or even voiced—enough.
Of course, some nonprofits also submitted their visions alongside big tech’s proposals to OSTP, but nonprofits do not always represent the interests of the people. As history and political science have taught us, for digital democracies to be truly strong, they must be backed by a vibrant digital civil society.
Yes, that means it’s time for YOU to ask, think, act, organize. Unless, of course, you’d rather live by the blueprints written for you by others.
The entire letter is available here.
Authors and Works Mentioned:
Altman, S. (2021, March 16). Moore’s Law for Everything. https://moores.samaltman.com/
Bernholz, L. (2013). Inventing Digital Civil Society: Lucy Bernholz at TEDxGrandRapids. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4rW1DVe10
Diamond, L. (1994). Rethinking civil society: Toward democratic consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 4–17.
Putnam, R. D. (2020). Bowling Alone: Revised and Updated: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton Univ. Press.
Tusalem, R. F. (2007). A boon or a bane? The role of civil society in third-and fourth-wave democracies. International Political Science Review, 28(3), 361–386.
United Nations, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, UNTS, vol. 993, p. 3.
Digital Kallipolis 
Leave a Reply