Do you feel comfortable trusting Sam Altman with your child’s online safety? Probably not. That feels like asking a fox to manage a henhouse. Yet, this question is gaining traction in places like Sacramento and Silicon Valley—and likely beyond in due time.
Today, the most influential AI companies are not just developing technology; they’re involved in crafting the regulations that govern it. This alone should raise eyebrows. When those who design the systems start writing the rules, an imbalance occurs well before any enforcement begins. The uniqueness of these machines is, after all, unprecedented in human history.
OpenAI recently partnered with Common Sense Media, a well-known organization focused on children’s online safety, founded by Jim Steyer—who happens to be the brother of a well-known Democratic candidate in California. Interestingly, OpenAI and Common Sense Media were once rivals in advocating for how children should engage with AI chatbots. They seem to have found common ground now.
The partnership aims to introduce a proposal that could soon appear on California ballots and potentially establish a national model.
California has historically been a testing ground for Democratic initiatives. From automobile emissions standards to data privacy laws and labor regulations, the patterns have been similar. Initial pilots are often followed by nationwide implementation. It’s a formula: introduce, establish precedent, exert pressure, and just like that, local policies influence national standards.
Inevitably, once established, rules become the norm, particularly for complex systems like ballot initiatives or compliance measures that only large companies can handle. Changing such rules? Politically dicey. Abolishing them appears risky. Any dissent is often portrayed not just as opposition but as a moral failure.
The arguments for this initiative seem foolproof: protect children, limit data gathering, and enforce age verification. Who could possibly argue against that? And therein lies the issue—moral reasoning becomes a cloak for impending policies.
If concerns arise about power dynamics and unintended effects, the proponents of the initiative have already taken the upper hand. It raises questions like: so you’d prefer children to be less safe? But really, politics in California isn’t just about good intentions; it’s loaded with incentives.
This brings us to an intriguing question: why would major AI firms want to help draft regulations intended to rein in their own industry? Properly designed regulations can offer more than just limitations; they create a buffer, allowing those already in power to absorb costs that small businesses find unmanageable while they continue to thrive.
Moreover, timing is crucial. Increasing scrutiny over how AI interacts with younger users puts pressure on companies like OpenAI. They face legal challenges, lawmakers are fidgety, and parents are worried. Aligning with a respected child advocacy group provides them with a veneer of virtue. They can shift from being seen as accused parties to being framed as protectors against recklessness.
That change in perception is significant. Companies positioned as part of the solution rather than the root cause face less scrutiny, allowing them to cement their influence in the regulatory landscape.
Ultimately, if California acts, the narrative will unfold predictably. Headlines will boast about “the nation’s strongest protections.” Governors from other states will be pressured to keep up. The template will be there, so why not adopt it?
In this way, regulations born from industry cooperation could become the national standard. This reflects a modern shift in how power is sustained, through well-executed partnerships and a narrative that uses children’s safety as a moral shield.
There’s no argument against the need for online safety for children. Absolutely. The digital environment is rife with dangers. However, hastily implemented safeguards, or worse, mere conveniences often miss the mark.
Ironically, efforts intended to safeguard the young can lead to an era characterized by heightened surveillance, diminished competition, and technology that mainly serves its own interests.
California finds itself as an experimental ground once more, with the expectation that the rest of the nation will follow suit.
So, back to that initial question: do you think Sam Altman and his peers will genuinely help children navigate what they can express, read, question, or envision? The inquiries themselves can serve as reflections. The unresolved point is whether the broader public will even have a say in the matter.
