Journalist Karen Hao, author of Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI, argues that AI development is driven by “quasi-religious movements” within Silicon Valley that lack a scientific foundation. This ideological push, centered on the pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), mirrors historical patterns of colonialism, according to Hao.
The Mythology of Artificial General Intelligence
The industry’s fixation on AGI serves as the bedrock for the massive capital inflows into OpenAI and its peers. However, Hao contends that this goal is not scientifically grounded. Instead, it functions as a belief system that justifies the massive consumption of resources, data, and energy.
This sentiment is echoed by broader academic skepticism regarding the current trajectory of Large Language Model (LLM) development. Researchers often point out that the leap from predictive text generation to sentient-like reasoning remains an unproven hypothesis.
Silicon Valley’s New Colonial Frontier
Hao’s research highlights how the AI industry’s expansion creates a form of colonialism. By extracting vast amounts of human-generated data—often from the Global South—without equitable compensation or consent, major tech firms consolidate power and influence. This extraction process is essential for training the models that Silicon Valley companies then monetize globally.
The consequences of this model extend beyond data privacy. The environmental and economic impacts are significant, as regional infrastructures are increasingly strained to support the massive data centers required by OpenAI and its competitors. This shift places the burden of environmental degradation on communities that often see little of the economic upside generated by the technology.
Institutional Capture and the Lack of Oversight
The “quasi-religious” framing of AI serves a secondary purpose: it creates an aura of inevitability that discourages meaningful regulatory intervention. By treating AGI as an existential destiny rather than a product subject to market forces and safety standards, companies like OpenAI have effectively lobbied to shape the legislative environment in their favor.
The Economic Reality Behind the Hype
To understand the current state of the industry, one must look at the disconnect between investment valuations and actual utility. While firms like OpenAI, backed by billions from Microsoft, continue to push the boundaries of model size, the path to profitability remains opaque. The industry is currently in a “capital-intensive phase,” where the goal is to secure market share through massive scaling rather than immediate revenue generation.
This reliance on massive capital expenditures creates a feedback loop. To justify the valuation, companies must continuously claim progress toward AGI, even if the tangible applications remain limited to productivity tools and content generation.
Moving Beyond the “Existential” Narrative
The reliance on “existential risk” narratives also distracts from the immediate, real-world harms of AI, such as algorithmic bias, labor displacement, and the erosion of intellectual property rights. By focusing on the “dream” of AGI, companies effectively relegate these pressing concerns to the background, framing them as minor inconveniences in the pursuit of a higher technological goal.
As the conversation around AI matures, the focus must shift from the speculative theology of AGI to the concrete realities of power, infrastructure, and human rights. The question for the next year of development is whether regulators can pierce through the industry’s carefully curated mythology to address the material impacts of these systems on the global population.
Do you believe the industry’s push for AGI is a genuine scientific pursuit, or is it simply a marketing shield designed to bypass necessary regulation? Let us know your thoughts on the ethics of AI expansion.
