
By: Maria Eitel (Project Syndicate)
Over the past year, the discussions surrounding artificial intelligence have exploded, presenting divergent views. Some see AI as a gateway to a bright and boundless future, while others fear it may lead us into a grim dystopia. We can liken these views to the captivating scenarios portrayed in summer blockbuster movies, with one resembling the optimism of “Barbie” and the other the foreboding sense of “Oppenheimer.” However, amidst these fervent debates, one crucial conversation seems to be overshadowed – the discussion about corporate responsibility.
In 1998, I joined Nike as its inaugural Vice President of Corporate Responsibility during a tumultuous period in the era of hyper-globalization. The sports and fitness giant was embroiled in a significant corporate crisis, becoming associated with labor exploitation in developing nations. Through this crisis, we faced challenging situations and learned valuable lessons that can now guide us in navigating the AI revolution.
Yet, there exists a fundamental distinction between then and now. During the Nike saga in the late 1990s, the events unfolded relatively slowly, granting us time to respond. In contrast, with AI, we lack such luxury. Just last year, generative AI burst into our collective consciousness like a lightning strike, and since then, we have been striving to comprehend its implications.
Presently, generative AI companies operate without externally imposed guardrails, making all of us unwitting participants in their experimentation. This reality is far from normal. If Boeing or Airbus were to introduce an airplane promising cost-effectiveness and speed but potentially posing severe dangers, society would not accept the risk. A pharmaceutical company launching an untested product while warning of its potential toxicity would be held criminally responsible for any illnesses or fatalities it caused. So why do we allow technology companies to bring AI products to the market when they themselves acknowledge the risk of endangering humanity?…
Featured News
Belgian Authorities Detain Multiple Individuals Over Alleged Huawei Bribery in EU Parliament
Mar 13, 2025 by
CPI
Grubhub’s Antitrust Case to Proceed in Federal Court, Second Circuit Rules
Mar 13, 2025 by
CPI
Pharma Giants Mallinckrodt and Endo to Merge in Multi-Billion-Dollar Deal
Mar 13, 2025 by
CPI
FTC Targets Meta’s Market Power, Calls Zuckerberg to Testify
Mar 13, 2025 by
CPI
French Watchdog Approves Carrefour’s Expansion, Orders Store Sell-Off
Mar 13, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Self-Preferencing
Feb 26, 2025 by
CPI
Platform Self-Preferencing: Focusing the Policy Debate
Feb 26, 2025 by
Michael Katz
Weaponized Opacity: Self-Preferencing in Digital Audience Measurement
Feb 26, 2025 by
Thomas Hoppner & Philipp Westerhoff
Self-Preferencing: An Economic Literature-Based Assessment Advocating a Case-By-Case Approach and Compliance Requirements
Feb 26, 2025 by
Patrice Bougette & Frederic Marty
Self-Preferencing in Adjacent Markets
Feb 26, 2025 by
Muxin Li