STATE-OWNED AI WON'T FIX INEQUALITY

Proponents argue state-owned AI could redirect profits toward public benefit rather than shareholders. However, the model introduces distinct risks. Government ownership can obscure decision-making processes. Without competitive market pressures and independent auditing, state-run AI systems may face weaker scrutiny. Public agencies lack the transparency requirements that constrain private corporations. Accountability suffers when a single entity acts as both operator and regulator. Complaints channels weaken when the government controls both the technology and oversight infrastructure. Historical examples show state ownership doesn't guarantee equitable outcomes. Public utilities often serve concentrated interests despite nominally serving the public good. Effective AI governance requires independent oversight, clear accountability structures, and competitive pressure—mechanisms that ownership alone cannot guarantee. Inequality reduction depends on regulatory frameworks, not merely who holds the keys. The real question isn't who owns AI, but whether systems exist to ensure it serves broad interests rather than narrow ones.