Introduction: Knowledge, Power, and Ambition
“Who overcomes/By force, hath overcome but half his foe.” John Milton, Paradise Lost , 1667, Book I, lines 648–649.
In the shadow of swirling lawsuits and heated debates over artificial intelligence (AI), the modern world seems to echo the tempest of Milton’s Paradise Lost, where the eternal struggle over knowledge, power, and ambition unfolds with unrelenting force. OpenAI’s evolution from a nonprofit research laboratory into a dominant market force raises questions familiar to Milton’s readers: What happens when the pursuit of knowledge transforms its seekers?
This article explores what game theorists call the “Moloch Trap” also known as a multipolar trap as a competitive dynamic where rational actors find themselves compelled toward choices that may ultimately harm the collective good. The term describes how competing actors in a system (like AI companies) can become locked in a pattern where each take actions that, while individually rational, lead to collectively harmful outcomes.
At a Yale Law School event in February 2024, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler emphasized the importance of companies providing specific, detailed disclosures about AI-related risks rather than generic statements.
Thousands of financial entities are looking to build downstream applications relying on what is likely to be but a handful of base models upstream. Such a development would promote both herding and network interconnectedness. Individual actors may make similar decisions as they get a similar signal from a base model or rely on a data aggregator. Such network interconnectedness and monocultures are the classic problems that lead to systemic risk.
In their paper, Largest Companies View AI as a Risk Multiplier Dean Kingsley, Matt Solomon, Deloitte & Touche LLP, and Kristen Jaconi (USC Marshall) state that: “A subsequent analysis of SEC filings examined AI risk disclosures in annual reports from 434 S&P 500 companies between late 2023 and early 2024. The study found that 273 companies (over 60%) included AI-related risks in their risk factor disclosures.”
Recent Lawsuit Highlights:
- November 29: Canadian media companies filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for allegedly scraping content without permission to develop ChatGPT.
- November 29: The Intercept successfully opposed OpenAI’s attempt to dismiss a copyright lawsuit, marking a notable victory in the ongoing legal battles.
- November 22: The New York Times reported that it spent significant time examining OpenAI’s training data but found all its work deleted by the company.
These lawsuits underscore a growing tension between the evolving landscape of generative AI technology and existing copyright laws. As multiple lawsuits progress through the courts, the outcomes may shape the future relationship between AI development and intellectual property rights. For ongoing updates on these legal matters, refer to the following sources: Copyright Alliance and Stafford Law.
Fair Use & The Fall from Grace
“For infernal pit shall never hold/Celestial spirits in bondage, nor the abyss/Long under darkness cover.” John Milton, Paradise Lost 1667, Book I, lines 657–659.
Like Moloch in Paradise Lost, who demands endless sacrifice, modern AI companies engage in relentless data consumption while battling legal challenges from media companies and content creators – their sacrifices on the altar of knowledge aquisition. OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic, to name but a few, face lawsuits over training their LLMs on copyrighted material without permission or compensation. While they claim “fair use,” content creators (like the author) are left in “the infernal pit,” wheras some media organizations with legal teams have pursued and closed licensing agreements under undisclosed terms.
As the author wrote in Stankevicius “On Narwhals, Unicorns, SB 1047 and Big Tech’s Messiah Savior Complex,” a Talos defense – referencing the bronze automaton guardian whose life force could be controlled – is needed. This parallel is reflected in SB 1047 and the EU AI Act, which mandate safety protocols, shutdown capabilities, and transparency requirements. Such regulations aim to prevent not just copyright infringement but also the broader threat of AI monopolies built on scraped data and opaque algorithms.
The stakes are existential for creative industries and democratic values alike. Content creators, already disrupted by digital technologies, face potential extinction from AI’s uncontrolled consumption of their work. Meanwhile, the concentration of data and algorithmic power in a few companies threatens to create digital oligarchies. Without implementing robust Talos-like controls immediately, we risk crossing a threshold where AI development becomes uncontrollable, sacrificing both creative sustainability and democratic transparency to these new technocracies caught in a Moloch Trap.
To Profit or Not-to-Profit: Elon Musk’s Concerns
“But first whom shall we send/In search of this new world, whom shall we find/Sufficient?” John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book II, lines 402–404.
Looking at Elon Musk’s 2015 email to Sam Altman, his main drive for supporting OpenAI appears to have stemmed from a genuine concern about AI benefiting humanity collectively rather than serving commercial interests. His emphasis on OpenAI being “unencumbered by an obligation to generate financial returns” and his vision of AI as “an extension of all individual human wills” suggests a deep commitment to democratizing AI development. In the email Musk acknowledges the importance of attracting top talent, yet his framing of lower pay as secondary to “the goal and structure” indicates that his primary motivation was creating an organization that would ensure AI development remained aligned with humanity’s collective interests rather than concentrated in the hands of a few profit-driven entities. The language about “disseminating AI technology as broadly as possible” and evolving toward “the future desired by the sum of humanity” reflects his apparent belief that AI’s development should be guided by and for the benefit of all people, not just commercial enterprises.
Subject: Draft opening paragraphs
Elon Musk to Sam Altman
Elon Musk to Sam Altman – Dec 8, 2015 9:29 AM
It is super important to get the opening summary section right. This will be what everyone reads and what the press mostly quotes. The whole point of this release is to attract top talent. Not sure Greg totally gets that.
—- OpenAI is a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company with the goal of advancing digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unencumbered by an obligation to generate financial returns.
The underlying philosophy of our company is to disseminate AI technology as broadly as possible as an extension of all individual human wills, ensuring, in the spirit of liberty, that the power of digital intelligence is not overly concentrated and evolves toward the future desired by the sum of humanity.
The outcome of this venture is uncertain and the pay is low compared to what others will offer, but we believe the goal and the structure are right. We hope this is what matters most to the best in the field.
Much of Musk’s text seems to be mirrored in the December 2017 Internal Revenue Code filing Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) OpenAI filing:
Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: OpenAIs goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. We think that artificial intelligence technology will help shape the 21st century, and we want to help the world build safe AI technology and ensure that AI’s benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. Were trying to build AI as part of a larger community, and we want to openly share our plans and capabilities along the way. (Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) OpenAI)
Breaking Free: Musk’s Battle for OpenAI’s Soul
“For infernal pit shall never hold/Celestial spirits in bondage, nor the abyss/Long under darkness cover.” John Milton, Paradise Lost, 1667, Book I, lines 657–659.
In a clash echoing Milton’s eternal struggle between freedom and constraint, Elon Musk’s legal battle against OpenAI represents more than just corporate litigation. At its core lies a fundamental question about artificial intelligence’s future: should it serve humanity’s collective benefit as originally envisioned or yield to commercial interests? This conflict pits Musk’s idealistic vision of open-source AI development against what he perceives as OpenAI’s drift toward proprietary control.
Musk’s legal action against OpenAI is rooted in several allegations:
- Discouraging Investment in Rivals: OpenAI allegedly discouraged investors from backing competitors like Musk’s new AI venture, xAI.
- Misuse of Sensitive Information: OpenAI is accused of benefiting from competitively sensitive information obtained through its partnership with Microsoft
- Governance Structure Manipulation: The conversion to a for-profit entity and the transfer of assets are seen as moves that contradict the original nonprofit mission.
Musk’s attorneys argue that “irreparable harm” (see Case 4:24-cv-04722-YGR, Document 46, Filed 11/29/24, p. 12) the following will occur if OpenAI’s actions continue unchecked. They emphasize the need to preserve the organization’s nonprofit character to protect both the plaintiffs and the public interest.
“MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION It would be one thing if Microsoft were, once again, engaging in anticompetitive conduct, this time with OpenAI. It would be another if OpenAI, aided and abetted by Microsoft, were violating the terms of Musk’s foundational contributions to the charity. But OpenAI and Microsoft together exploiting Musk’s donations so they can build a for-profit monopoly, one now specifically targeting xAI, is just too much. Plaintiffs and the public need a pause. OpenAI’s path from a nonprofit to for-profit behemoth is replete with per se anticompetitive practices, flagrant breaches of its charitable mission, and rampant selfdealing. Allowing this course of conduct to continue until final disposition will seriously harm Plaintiffs and the public at large, whether as competitors, FAC 201, 227, 330-89, as donors and early members, id. 237-39, 416-83, as investors facing a complex and costly unwinding, id. 113, 124, 387(f), as consumers, id. 330-415, as taxpayers, id. 183, 312, 387(d)-(e), as citizens concerned about violations of California and federal law, id. 387(a)-(i), or simply as people, concerned about rushed, unsafe AI products, id. “
As Milton explored this dynamic through supernatural beings competing for power and knowledge, today’s AI companies are caught in a similar trap where market pressures force them to prioritize rapid advancement over safety, even when all parties recognize the collective risk. Just as Milton explored how the promise of forbidden knowledge altered both paradise and its inhabitants, today’s AI landscape shows how market pressures and technological competition reshape not just companies but the very principles they were founded upon.
Conclusion: Forbidden Fruit and Moloch’s Grip
That who so eats thereof, forthwith attains/Wisdom without their leave? and wherein lies/The offense, that Man should thus attain to know?/What can your knowledge hurt him, or this tree/Impart against his will, if all be his?/Or is it envy? and can envy dwell/In heavenly breasts? These, these, and many more/Causes import your need of this fair fruit./Goddess humane, reach then, and freely taste! John Milton, Paradise Lost 1667, Book IX, lines 724-733.
For the author, Paradise Lost offers a profound allegory to the dilemmas we face in the age of AI. Just as Adam and Eve’s pursuit of forbidden knowledge led them out of Eden and into uncertain territory, humanity now stands at a crossroads, hand in hand with technology, facing an uncharted future. The serpent’s question, “That who so eats thereof, forthwith attains / Wisdom without their leave?” challenges divine authority and reveals the risks of seeking power without understanding its consequences. This dynamic mirrors the modern tech landscape, where companies like OpenAI find themselves caught in Moloch’s grip – a systemic trap where competitive pressures force actions that may harm the collective good. Even as SEC disclosures reveal their awareness of AI’s risks, the race continues unabated, like Milton’s characters need of the need of “this fair fruit,” despite divine warnings.
The immense potential of AI mirrors the allure of the forbidden fruit, promising wisdom and progress yet carrying profound risks if left unchecked. Just as Paradise Lost depicts the inexorable pull toward knowledge despite its potential risks, today’s tech companies cannot slow their pursuit of AI advancement without risking obsolescence – a modern parallel to Milton’s fall from grace. The story of OpenAI development serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to action, highlighting how individual actors, despite recognizing potential catastrophic risks, remain bound by market forces to push forward.
Let us hope our children shall not lament “What can be worse than to dwell here, driv’n out from bliss, condemn’d in his abhorred deep to utter woe; where pain of unextinguishable fire must exercise us without hope of end”. Moloch in book II, lines 85–89, Paradise Lost.
This article was written by Dr. Jasmin (Bey) Cowin, Associate Professor and U.S. Department of State English Language Specialist (2024). As a columnist for Stankevicius, she writes on Nicomachean Ethics: Insights at the Intersection of AI and Education. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
