Sam Altman Just Published Something Horrifying

Editor’s Note: This week, I am pleased to present to you a guest editorial from my friend, fellow free-market warrior and fellow literature lover Brandon Brison, Creative Director for the advertising firm CDMG. Brandon is an accomplished writer, thinker and, most importantly, an accomplished friend. Here’s his take on OpenAI founder Sam Altman’s rather dystopian plans for AI-inspired government control of the economy, and by extension, control of us all.

This one was in and out of the news cycle in about 30 seconds, so you probably missed it. But a few weeks ago, OpenAI released a policy paper titled, “Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to Keep People First.” It’s being marketed by the tech geniuses behind ChatGPT as a “conversation starter” about how democracies should handle the emergence of superintelligent artificial intelligence (AI).

If you’re a fan of free markets, property rights and limited government (which, if you’re a Jim Woods’ fan, you likely are), then you should definitely read it. For now, I’ll give you the quick summary: OpenAI is openly proposing a nearly complete government takeover of the economy.

The rationale? Superintelligent AI, which they pinky swear is just around the corner, is going to make most “knowledge work” obsolete, resulting in an economic crash so utterly profound that only our wholly benevolent and mostly efficient government can prevent wholesale devastation, mass hysteria and basically the end of the world.

For a free‑market capitalist, the horror comes in layers.

Right up front, after giving lip service to how “competition, entrepreneurship and open economic participation have lifted living standards,” the authors openly and freely admit this proposal is not about letting markets work.

They write: “The transition to superintelligence will require an even more ambitious form of industrial policy, one that reflects the ability of democratic societies to act collectively, at scale, to shape their economic future so that superintelligence benefits everyone” because, in their words, “market forces alone aren’t sufficient.”

Their solution? New taxes on automation. A government‑run Public Wealth Fund. Government-subsidized energy infrastructure for AI data centers. Industrial‑policy tools to manage how and where people work. Almost every concrete proposal is a new claim on someone else’s capital, autonomy or property.

Consider just a few specifics. OpenAI argues for a legally recognized “Right to AI,” saying access to powerful models should be treated as “foundational for participation in the modern economy, similar to mass efforts to increase global literacy, or to make sure that electricity and the internet reach remote parts of the globe.”

Then there is the proposed Public Wealth Fund. OpenAI wants governments and AI companies to “work together to determine how to best seed the Fund,” which would invest in assets that “capture growth in both AI companies and the broader set of firms adopting and deploying AI,” with returns “distributed directly to citizens.”

On taxation, the paper proposes to “modernize the tax base” by “increasing reliance on capital-based revenues… and by exploring new approaches such as taxes related to automated labor.”

Translation: if you improve your efficiency via automation, you can expect to be singled out for special taxation.

In case it wasn’t obvious, the problem with every single one of these proposals is that someone — taxpayers, investors, you and me — will be forced to provide subsidized access on political terms, not market terms. Strip away the weasel words and what you have left is a state‑managed asset, and once the state sits on that capital stack, it will demand influence. Influence on who gets funded, which uses are “acceptable” and which companies are too dangerous or politically incorrect to exist.

I could dive into the fascist (in the literal sense) implications of this government/corporate hybrid, but as this e-letter is primarily focused on markets, it suffices to say that this is precisely the kind of government interference that leads to misallocated capital, slower growth and stymied innovation.

When the government puts its thumbs on the scales, the inevitable result is penalizing the very acts that drive productivity, while rewarding inefficiency and bloat that could not survive in a free and open market.

All of this is bad enough, but believe it or not, the OpenAI proposal goes even further.

OpenAI calls for centrally planned labor allocation, with cash transfers to beneficiaries set to autopilot. Its euphemistic “adaptive safety nets” would automatically expand unemployment benefits, cash assistance and wage insurance when certain indicators spike. OpenAI also proposes steering displaced workers into a “care and connection economy” such as childcare, eldercare and community services.

So, in this world of superintelligent AI, OpenAI foresees the day-to-day options for most people will consist of either cashing welfare checks or glorified nanny work in a world where politicians, bureaucrats and middle-managers control essentially every facet of the economy.

If you’re anything like me, after learning about OpenAI’s proposals, your first thought after “This is insane!” is “Why is OpenAI proposing this?”

That’s a good question. And like most good questions, you can find an excellent (or at least compelling) answer by following the money: What financial incentives would OpenAI have to put forward such unabashedly socialist proposals? And “following the money” shows us that while OpenAI is growing revenue quickly, it is nowhere near profitable.

One widely cited New York Times article reports that OpenAI lost $5 billion in 2024 on $3.7 billion in revenue. And, according to The Information, internal documents indicate the company expects cumulative losses on the order of $115 billion by the end of the decade. That’s not even getting into OpenAI’s $1.4 trillion in data center commitments over the next eight years.

Suffice it to say, OpenAI is not currently a self‑sustaining, free‑market success story. It is a capital‑intensive, money-burning project that depends on a handful of giant partners and now, increasingly, on government checks.

Partially to combat this massive cash deficit, in 2025, OpenAI launched “OpenAI for Government,” winning a Pentagon contract worth up to $200 million to “develop prototype frontier AI” for both back‑office functions and frontline operations. And while that $200 million might be a drop in the bucket in the face of potentially billions in cash burn and more than a trillion dollars in commitments, the Pentagon contract is just the most visible piece of the puzzle.

Which brings us back to motive. Why is OpenAI saying all this?

In my opinion, it’s partly ideological.

Even though Sam Altman has posted on X (formerly Twitter) that “We believe that governments should not pick winners or losers, and that taxpayers should not bail out companies that make bad business decisions or otherwise lose in the market,” this white paper published only a few months later is steeped in Progressive Era nostalgia and the idea that every large technological shift must be met with a New Deal‑style expansion of the state.

Mostly, however, I think it’s about corporate survival. Let’s face it: running frontier models is brutally expensive. OpenAI spends more on compute in a year than most tech startups will see in a decade. It has tied itself to defense contracts, lobbied for industrial policy that favors large, well‑capitalized labs and now openly calls for a world in which AI’s trajectory is guided and funded by the state… and coincidentally positions itself as one of the primary beneficiaries.

If there’s a moral to this story, it might be this: Sometimes the prognosticators’ predictions about the future are less about what they think is true, and more about what they need to be true.

****************************************************************

Join the Dance

“The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it and join the dance.”

–Alan Watts

Technological change has always been, and always will be, here. But there is no need to fear that change, because change will come regardless of how you feel about it. Instead, adapt to that change, move with it and, as the great Alan Watts recommends, just join the dance.

Wisdom about money, investing and life can be found anywhere. If you have a good quote that you’d like me to share with your fellow readers, send it to me, along with any comments, questions and suggestions you have about my newsletters, seminars or anything else. Click here to ask Jim.

In the name of the best within us,

Jim Woods