OpenAI wants to raise taxes on the rich, expand the welfare state, let workers decide how their employers use artificial intelligence, and give everyone a share of the tech industry’s profits.
Or so the company claims in a new vision statement.
In that document, the AI titan stated that the government needs to implement radical economic reforms to “broadly share prosperity” in “the age of intelligence.”
The plan received much more attention than the typical policy white paper, due in large part to its unlikely author. Tech companies don’t typically issue radical proposals to restructure the U.S. economy.
That said, OpenAI’s vision statement is unprecedented. AI moguls have long warned that their technology could cause mass unemployment, while pointing to the need to redistribute income.
Still, even by the standards of Silicon Valley thought leadership, the agenda OpenAI outlines is remarkably progressive. In fact, it largely overlaps with Senator Bernie Sanders’ own AI proposals (minus his moratorium on building data centers). Since advanced AI could divert income from workers to business owners, OpenAI proposes the creation of a “public wealth fund.” Basically, the government would buy a stake in the most profitable companies in the country and then give shares to all American citizens. In other words, he would give Americans a little bit of socialism, as a gift.
OpenAI also demands, among other things: higher capital gains taxes; more public funding for jobs in healthcare, education and community service; give employees more influence over corporate governance; and hold AI companies accountable for compliance with new security standards.
All of these policies are vaguely outlined. The document is 13 pages long and dedicates only a brief paragraph to most of its proposals. It sounds a lot like something ChatGPT would spit out if you asked it to research ideas to combat AI-induced inequality for 10 minutes.
For progressive critics of OpenAI, however, its agenda is less ironic for its laziness than for its hypocrisy: the political behavior of its top leaders contradicts the company’s supposed commitment to egalitarian reform.
In truth, OpenAI is engaging in one of Silicon Valley’s most annoying traditions: announcing its support for radical new social policies that have no real chance of becoming law anytime soon, while ignoring – if not inciting – attacks on actual welfare programs in the here and now.
OpenAI supports social democracy in theory and republicans in practice
For years now, tech billionaires have worried loudly about how artificial intelligence could increase inequality and unemployment. And many have argued that the government should create a universal basic income (UBI), a guaranteed minimum wage for every American, to account for this risk. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were making versions of that argument as early as 2017.
Of course, there was no real prospect of Congress creating a UBI that year. On the contrary, congressional Republicans did attempt to gut the Affordable Care Act in 2017.
Those responsible for OpenAI have made their political priorities clear, and sharing “prosperity broadly” is not among them.
It is difficult to understand how one could believe that 1) everyone should earn an income, regardless of their employment status. and 2) people should not necessarily receive health insurance if they do not have a job.
If technology-induced inequality justifies universal monetary benefits, it presumably also demands universal healthcare. However, Musk, Zuckerberg and many of the Valley’s other UBI advocates made little effort to thwart the GOP’s attempt to repeal Obamacare. They also failed to move to prevent the expiration of Joe Biden’s enhanced Child Tax Credit, a policy that effectively guaranteed a minimum income for all parents with young children.
In 2026, the disconnect between OpenAI’s advocacy for legislatively irrelevant reforms (and its approach to live political debates) is even greater. While the company floats collective ownership of the AI industry in PDFs, its leaders are funding opponents of the welfare state.
OpenAI itself stays out of political races. However, in September, OpenAI president Greg Brockman and his wife donated $25 million to a pro-Trump super PAC. Along with OpenAI investor Marc Andreessen, Brockman has also invested funds in Leading Our Future, a PAC dedicated to electing opponents of state AI regulations. As part of that effort, the group supports a wide range of Republican candidates.
Meanwhile, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman maxed out donations to several Republican lawmakers in 2024, while also committing $1 million to Donald Trump’s inauguration fund.
If this money gave Altman and Brockman any influence in the White House, there is no sign that they used it to oppose Trump’s push to impose new work requirements on food stamps and Medicaid last year.
And yet, those policies are totally contrary to the economic philosophy that OpenAI is now conveying. Surely, if the threat of mass AI-induced unemployment demands the creation of a public wealth fund, it must also prohibit stifling basic healthcare to millions of people who cannot find work.
However, OpenAI leaders did not currently feel publicly opposing Trump’s legislation. And Brockman’s super PAC appears to give no importance to its candidates’ social welfare policies. Whether it’s Republican or Democratic primaries, the group’s only concern appears to be blocking state-level AI safety regulations, including several that OpenAI apparently supports in its vision statement.
Disheartened billionaires should go back to basics
Of course, there are worse things than hypocrisy. I’d rather see AI companies do virtuous signaling about wealth redistribution than, say, create chatbots that rant about “white genocide.”
Furthermore, I suspect that the actual authors of the OpenAI “industrial policy” document are sincere. The company’s leaders and employees do not have the same politics (the latter overwhelmingly donated to Democrats in 2024).
However, the people in charge of OpenAI have made their policy priorities clear, and sharing “prosperity broadly” is not among them.
Rich technicians who are However, those who are really concerned about that goal should probably spend a little less energy crafting half-hearted proposals for UBI, and a little more on intervening in real legislative fights over social welfare policies.