If the markets reject OpenAI and Anthropic, the US should nationalize them
OpenAI, and then Anthropic, were each formed by AI developers who feared unrestrained corporate AI development – specifically, that companies like Google and Meta would steer the technology towards deleterious, maybe even catastrophically unsafe, outcomes for society. Their founders proclaimed that their new labs, uniquely, could be trusted to develop the technology in humanity’s best interest. But each, in turn, were themselves co-opted by the same market incentives, themselves becoming corporate behemoths zealously guarding future investor value rather than the public interest.
It was only a few weeks ago, in June, when OpenAI and Anthropic each filed for their IPOs and were met with buzz about trillion-dollar valuations. The hype around their valuations is so extreme that many worry about their potential for concentrating wealth on a global scale. In an effort to leave something for the rest of us, some observers have proposed that the federal government seize a share of these companies’ stock to create a US sovereign wealth fund, or redistribute their revenues to produce a dividend for taxpayers.
Now the headlines are about public backlash to AI datacenters and the AI chip giant Nvidia’s slumping stock. The tech and AI giant SpaceX’s newly minted stock price tanked just weeks after its IPO. There are even questions about whether the leading AI labs will ever be sustainably profitable. All of a sudden, the makers of ChatGPT and Claude face strong headwinds as they seek to generate the massive equity assets that once felt all but assured.
In fact, evidence suggests the market itself could reassess that these companies offer nothing of financial value. In that case, perhaps we can return them both to their original purposes. If these AI companies should fail in the financial markets, the US should nationalize them and convert them into national labs operated under democratic control that preserve their benefit to the public interest.
The economics of the big AI labs hardly guarantee a booming return on investment. Frontier AI models are both expensive to train and depreciate within months, when a newer model appears. This means that the payback window to extract profit from them is very narrow. Meanwhile, enterprise clients are getting smart about minimizing AI token usage. Even worse, the models are basically commodities; the best ones largely perform and behave similarly, which depresses prices. Perhaps most importantly, open-source and Chinese competitors – lagging only a few months behind the leading labs in capability – give away for free the kinds of models Anthropic and OpenAI sell.
Even setting aside the model training costs, it’s not clear whether the unit economics of AI as it’s currently conceived will ever be sustainably profitable. Many of these free and open-source models can be run locally: the large ones on private clouds and high-end servers, the smaller ones on anyone’s laptop or even cellphone, putting to question the companies’ exorbitant capital investment in datacenters.
It’s not that OpenAI and Anthropic are not valuable as organizations. They have remarkably talented AI scientists and engineers that are continuously producing innovations driving a global mania for their offerings. These leading labs might not ever be profitable, but their products are doing a lot of good in the world. You may or may not be a user of or believer in their technology, but their staggering, ongoing usage growth suggests that an awful lot of people would be disappointed if the companies simply disappeared.
The problem isn’t the people or the products, it’s the system. As constituted, OpenAI and Anthropic may not be valuable as market equities. If the market assesses they are not capable of producing a growing financial return on investment for shareholders, the companies will collapse.
Maybe private, for-profit is just not the right economic model under which to develop AI. Perhaps OpenAI should be returned to its private non-profit roots, the legacy they fought so hard to changeand which Anthropic’s founders spurned. Or possibly both could be reorganized as research centers at universities, returning to academia the scores of high-profile research faculty they have poached.
But a better outcome for society would be to establish public ownership and operation of their product-oriented capabilities. Turn OpenAI and Anthropic into US government agencies producing AI as a public good.
Transitioning the big AI labs into public agencies would require some restructuring. We can separate these companies into two pieces: product innovation and compute operations. The innovation function can be publicly managed, akin to national labs. Congress could provide more rigorous oversight than the kind of unfettered venture capital these labs have recently had access to. The US has a long, successful history of these kinds of institutions, which have produced world-shaping innovations in spaceflight, telecommunications, nuclear power and more. Congress currently manages a $200bn R&D portfolio, within which frontier AI development is, arguably, a glaring gap.
AI operations could be managed as a commodity resource, like public electrical or water utilities: local or regional ownership, nationwide distribution and strict regulation on how they balance fee extraction from ratepayers with raising capital for infrastructure investment. Although AI datacenters are not the same as power or water treatment plants, the US also has a long history of managing national, regional and state supercomputing centers.
Other countries, including Switzerland, Spain and Singapore, are already operating public AI labs. They also have national supercomputing centers already providing public access for running AI models for general use, as do Germany and Australia.
The benefits to the public are clear. Through democratic oversight, the most important AI models could become open, transparent and responsive to the demands of the public rather than private shareholders. They could be aligned to democratic values rather than corporate profits, never taking advertiser money to promote certain brands and training on only appropriately licensed data. And they could be set to focus on the realistic and pro-social goal of maximizing the usefulness of AI to society rather than the fanciful and anti-social goal of supplanting humans with artificial general intelligence.
By emphasizing scientific cooperation rather than corporate competition, we could also reduce the overall resource and environmental cost associated with AI. Instead of perpetually dueling training runs of each companies’ models at ever large scales targeted to fuel investor hype, we could limit AI training resources based on cost and benefit to the public.
What’s in it for the companies themselves and their employees, who sacrifice hypothetical billions in equity by ceding to public ownership? A return to their roots and to their coremission of developing AI safely in the public interest, if they are serious about it. Both companies are theoretically bound through their governance structures to prioritize mission over profit anyway (not that anyone really thinks that’s how they currently operate).
To be clear, we’re not advocating for a golden parachute for the executives or investors, or for continuing the outlandish pay rates of the most highly remunerated AI researchers. If the public is footing the bill, these compensation packages should be aligned to the civil service and those employees not satisfied with that can go elsewhere – if the business models of any remaining private labs still support much higher pay.
While we believe that these companies are unsustainable as private firms, the timeline remains unclear. Their primary investor story is that AI is a race to “artificial general intelligence” – the kind of AI you’re used to from science fiction. The bet seems to be that the two companies can convince enough people that this outcome will turn them a profit, go public, and then make their investors and employees rich before the bubble bursts.
But suppose that the bubble bursts. If the US is smart, it will catch the companies as they fall. Regardless of what the markets think, to the public, they’re too valuable to let die.
Bruce Schneier is a security technologist who teaches at the Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University and University of Toronto’s Munk School
Nathan E Sanders is a data scientist affiliated with the Berkman Klein Center of Harvard University and co-author, with Bruce Schneier, of the book Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship
Reporting from The Guardian contributed to this story.
