OpenAI is now piloting "mission interviews" to ensure its staff are aligned with the goal of making artificial general intelligence benefit all of humanity. It is a lofty sentiment, yet the current economic reality tells a different story. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, tech titans now command a combined fortune of $4.6 trillion, while those who built wealth outside the technology sector lost a combined $62 billion in the first nine months of the year. One wonders if the "mission" includes this staggering concentration of wealth.
In the name of progress, we are asked to overlook the cracks in the foundation. In Texas, the price of transparency regarding AI-enabled surveillance has reached a staggering $2.3 million—a fee requested by city officials to fulfill a public records request about the effectiveness and misuse of automated license plate readers. Meanwhile, researchers have exposed that the very "hallways" of our new AI architectures—the Model Context Protocol—are left unguarded. Vulnerabilities in these systems have been tested against organizations ranging from financial giants like JP Morgan Chase to the US and French governments, revealing that malicious instructions can spread through agentic networks like fire through a wooden scaffold.
In Greece and Cyprus, a different narrative is being crafted. We hear of "Trusted AI" and legislative frameworks designed to protect the "privacy of the soul" from algorithmic management. Minister Niki Kerameus is moving to mandate human oversight for platform workers, while Chief Scientist Dimitris Skouridis outlines a "Human+" model for 2030, combining human judgment with AI's analytical power. But how can we trust these digital corridors when the underlying protocols lack "Zero Trust" principles, and specialized agents are being connected to sensitive databases without robust authorization?
We are told that AI will enhance our lives, yet we see it automating the most personal of tasks. Google’s Gemini may soon be calling our parents to report delays, and startups in Utah are deploying AI to issue acne prescriptions with only periodic physician review. As human behavior expert Vanessa Van Edwards warns, we are paying the "invoice of alienation" in installments. We prioritize competence and busyness over the warmth and true presence that AI cannot scale.
Will we continue to accept these systemic risks for a future where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, or is it time to demand a Nomos that prioritizes human dignity over algorithmic efficiency? Who, exactly, is this progress intended to serve?
