sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Eric Posner forsees a concentration of economic and corporate political power that will exceed Gilded Age levels

Public Policy / opinion
Eric Posner forsees a concentration of economic and corporate political power that will exceed Gilded Age levels
"The Menace of the Hour"
George B. Luks, 1899

With long-gestating antitrust cases against Google, Apple, and Amazon coming to fruition, many observers think that 2024 could be a turning point for Big Tech. Yet even as authorities press ahead with this litigation, they risk being blindsided by the rise of artificial intelligence, which is likely to reinforce Big Tech’s dominance of the economy.

The recent firing and rehiring of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was interpreted as a conflict between cautious board members who worried about the risks of AI and enthusiasts like Altman. But the real significance of this episode was what it revealed about OpenAI’s relationship with Microsoft, the largest investor in OpenAI’s commercial operations. While OpenAI’s nonprofit structure nominally means that only its board controls it, the board was forced to rehire Altman after Microsoft expressed misgivings that helped instigate an employee revolt.

Microsoft is not just an investor in OpenAI; it is also a competitor. Both companies develop and sell AI products, and Microsoft had stopped short of acquiring OpenAI to avoid antitrust problems. But if Microsoft controls or partly controls OpenAI, the two companies may have an illegal collusive relationship. That is why the US Federal Trade Commission and the United Kingdom’s competition authority are both investigating the matter.

The OpenAI-Microsoft relationship is only a small part of a rapidly growing AI oligopoly. As a recent paper by the law professors Tejas Narechania of the University of California, Berkeley, and Ganesh Sitaraman of Vanderbilt University documents, market power is rife all along the AI supply chain. The monopolist Nvidia manufactures most of the chips needed for AI development. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft dominate cloud computing, which is essential for storing the data on which AI models are trained.

Since these companies and Meta (Facebook/Instagram’s parent company) are among the only ones that can collect and store such data, they are also the ones developing – and profiting from – the most important AI models and applications. While Microsoft has a lock on ChatGPT, along with its own proprietary AI apps, Google has Bard and, alongside Amazon, is investing billions in Anthropic (the developer of Claude).

Virtually all the major tech companies and their executives are connected through institutions and professional networks. These include the start-up incubator Y Combinator (where Altman served as president before moving to OpenAI); joint research projects (such as an AI-related partnership that includes Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft); corporate boards; and social relationships. OpenAI’s own nonprofit board includes, or has included, people with connections to other companies that are also developing AI products. One of its founding members, for example, was Elon Musk, who quit several years ago.

This web of close connections creates significant opportunities for collusion (which is illegal) or coordination (which is legal but still bad for consumers). But with public attention focused largely on individual Big Tech firms’ abuses of monopoly power, people have overlooked the many ways that tech companies can collude with each other to extend their market power.

These behemoths have a long history of such behavior. In 2010, several of them settled a case, brought by the Department of Justice, in which they were accused of agreeing not to hire away one another’s software engineers. In emails, Apple’s Steve Jobs scolded Google’s Eric Schmidt for allowing recruiters to hire Apple employees, and Schmidt ordered a subordinate to fire a recruiter “verbally” so as to “avoid a paper trail.”

In an ongoing case challenging Google’s dominance of search, the court heard evidence that Google paid Apple for default status on the iPhone, with the possible goal of keeping Apple out of the search market that Google monopolises. In another case against Google for monopolising digital advertising, the DOJ alleges that Google paid off Facebook to avoid a challenge to its stranglehold on that market.

Years ago, Apple was caught orchestrating a collusive scheme among book publishers. And when OpenAI’s employees threatened to leave for Microsoft after Altman’s ouster, they were effectively trying to sell OpenAI to Microsoft. It was a kind of collusion among employees to accomplish a merger that would have violated the spirit, and possibly the letter, of antitrust law.

The cozy relationships among tech executives are reminiscent of the Gilded Age “money trust” of key banks and financial institutions that both supplied capital to the era’s industrial giants and colluded with them and one another. The money trust’s extraordinary power led to antitrust legislation (in 1890 and 1914), regulation (including the establishment of the US Federal Reserve in 1913), and eventually laws that broke up banks, restricted their involvement in owning companies, and limited their operations (in the 1930s). Unlike an oil company or a railroad, banks are uniquely positioned to drive consolidation across the economy, because they can use their financial leverage over virtually every company in diverse economic sectors to control their behavior, including by pushing for mergers.

Big Tech firms now resemble banks in their influence across the economy – but at a supercharged level. Through their access to data, they know more about consumer and business behavior, and exert more control over it, than banks ever did. They supply vital inputs to businesses across the economy, as well as products and services to almost all consumers. No bank has ever had such reach.

It is little wonder that tech companies are also displacing financial institutions at the economy’s commanding heights. As a rueful financier commented in the Financial Times, Big Tech has consistently shouldered aside financial institutions in the race to buy AI companies. Not only are the six largest US-based companies (by market capitalisation) tech firms, but the smallest among them (Meta) is almost twice the size of JPMorgan. The top seven tech companies now account for 30% of the entire S&P 500; even in its 1920s heyday of market domination, the banking system accounted for only 16-19%.

Cartoonists from the early era of antitrust depicted the financial connections among the banks and real-economy monopolists as octopus tentacles, which encircled and squeezed politicians and consumers alike. If AI lives up to its promise and becomes the lifeblood of every sector of the economy – as an input in every industry from law to manufacturing – we can expect a future of economic concentration and corporate political power that dwarfs anything that came before.


Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is the author of How Antitrust Failed Workers (Oxford University Press, 2021). This content is © Project Syndicate, 2024, and is here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

22 Comments

Sobering reading, thanks.

I take out of that, that human nature doesn't change, the 7 deadly sins persist and evolve expression in ever more complex and insidious forms. Albeit thinly clothed in token altruism.

Up
5

They use the word 'tech' to position themselves against the wider context of all technology and knowledge, and look relatively small. 

The reality is that collectively they're an oligopoly or monopoly for many billion dollar industries such as social media, web search, document creation, software platforms, AI, online advertising, digital maps etc etc etc etc etc.

Viva la antitrust!

Up
2

It’s a strange situation, as the USA government will absolutely want these companies to thrive and maintain their monopolies. They generate so much technological and economic power for the USA. 
 Clip their wings too much and maybe a Chinese company may fill the gap. 
 
 

Up
5

And political power for the left. Any google search has a heavy left wing bias with leftard sites like wikipedia at top of any search. The ability to suppress stories like the hunter Biden laptop and heavily promote storeis the Russian disinformation hoax is crucial to their election strategy.

Up
2

The big tech - big government love in rolls on.  Thanks Internet, it was nice knowing you.

Ofcom poaches Big Tech staff in push to enforce new ...

https://www.ft.com › Companies › Europe › Media

15 hours ago — "UK regulator hires executives from Meta, Microsoft and Google as it gains powers from Online Safety Act.

 

Up
0

Yes they would be foolish to hobble US companies in the biggest and most important arms race in human history. The trouble is if they don't achieve AGI, quantum computing supremacy etc someone else will. The lesser of two evils?

Up
0

Microsoft is now more powerful than Ma Bell was prior to its breakup. Still amazed that they haven't been split up but guess they provide the right access to data for the US Govt, you can avoid that fate.

As a competitor surprised that they have such a stake in Open AI. Microsofts track record on absorbing others ideas is well known. Aka directory, browser, java etc. All ideas created by others.

Up
2

As with anything IT, the old axiom of cr4p in = cr4p out comes to mind.

Up
1

A.I. has one massive advantage over humans. AI will actually listen. I.e. AI will listen to a question and actually answer it. Try doing that with a human - especially one in IRD's 'customer service' department.

But AI has a very real problem. Like the self-driving car nonsense, which uses AI, they're crap at dealing with the 0.1 percent of problems that the human brain deals with 100s of times each day - often without even thinking that AI would fail at the same scenario.

So nah. This IT guy will continue to chuckle at the absurdity of the hype. I don't doubt we'll see it implemented all over the place - with executives types patting themselves on the back at how clever they are - but at the coal face both customers and front line staff will be unimpressed.

Up
2

AI is the future of intelligence......       perhaps capable of surviving millions of years in space.

Up
1

A stone tablet (or gold disc if you like Voyager) is also capable of surviving millions of years in space.

FOr AI it is a bit more difficult, to "Survive" it needs,

  1. Energy
  2. A way in which to interact physically with the environment. i.e. it would need a physical body.
Up
0

it can hibernate better than humans, and it's possible it can un-hibernate based on solar picking up distant suns....    its too complex to try and keep humans alive long enough to do this mission.      

Up
0

We should have see alien AI by now,

Up
0

So large Tech have snuck around the back and become larger than the banks in terms of considered value, offering fun products that the worlds consumers flock to. The have over taken the delivery of media that previously was serviced by print and television channels and have removed the need for pay per min telecommunications companies in offering free voice and text offerings. Now they have massive intelligence models which with exponentially increase their own power and their public offerings can be throttled by those exact companies as to what your average Joe can access, whilst front loading their prediction models potentially years into the future. And yet people think that the monetary system will never fail and computerised means of exchange outside the banks is made up fluff and just a lot of hot air.... hmmmmm .... lets see..

Up
1

indeed but of all the countries in the world NZ offers the best opportunity to disrupt both the fibre and power that AI require....

Up
0

What do mean by disrupt ?

Do you mean disrupt as in provide a more efficient / cheaper alternative ?
or; 
disrupt as in restrict because the providers consider the AI a threat ?

Up
0

It will disrupt, already is. Look at the writers strike in the US. All before it has mass robotic limbs to assist manual labour tasks. 

Up
1

Sounds fine.... writers can strike ..... but you only need the youth, the biggest consumers of media, gaming, entertainment and trends (albeit in 20 second blasts atm, but thats exactly how youtube started with short format cat meow videos)

AI will allow anyone with a great idea today to potentially have a full length movie / game / app idea in not so many years time just by pushing "I want to:" questions at AI machines. Not quite what they were thinking, so return the code and ask it to change the look / feel slightly...

The create and itterate market will be able to be produced by anyone that is willing to have a digital idea and willling to continue to press a portal until they get it right....  

Up
0

Well if the AI model being used to generate the content was smart enough, it would already by default generate the most likeable content?

Or is it only constrained by everything up to that point in time that it has consumed itself?

Up
0

I imagine a world soon where the off button is pushed. The machine does something really bad...so so bad, and the only thing to do is turn it off. The question is, does humanity survive the bad thing...

Up
0

Excellent article. Thanks for sharing 

Up
0

A key difference between the Gilded Age accrual of money through banks,railroads and the rest is that humans were required to make the decisions and undertake the work involved in developing the octopus.

In an age of AI, the work can be made self-perpetuating and automated: the octopus can grow itself and therefore may grow much faster.

Up
0