Kelly Sikkema Unsplash

The technocracy is building a structure for a new form of government. As with industrial revolutions of the past, AI wreaks havoc on our environment while presenting itself as the inevitable future. The industry’s profitability is built on the concept that it will increase profits for the ownership class by eliminating jobs for the working classes. By that standard, the new form of government is structured as the age-old class divide between the haves and the have-nots.

Anthropic and other AI companies are attempting to transform our society on a vast scale. They are accountable as political actors serving political systems. In the AI political system, the people do not have a voice and are little more than users who can be exploited as a funding source for growth, implementing controls built into the AI system designed to get them to pay up, targeting users on a very individualized level!

Anthropic targeted the enterprise market by designing AI functions to replace human jobs, aligning with the interests of the ownership class over the interests of the working classes. and effectively creating a new mechanism to expand the wealth divide.

Still, the creators of the AI-governed world describe AI as a benefit for all humanity, but their differing policies toward diverse classes speak otherwise.

Concentrated wealth rewarded Anthropic by investing billions of dollars on speculation, and Anthropic rewarded the class of concentrated wealth by providing it with the tools to eliminate humans from its payroll.

I, a member of the would-be governed masses, have been engrossed in setting up my website for my small business on a new server.

My website and server use WordPress. WordPress used to be user-friendly for the individual user. It was once possible to design visually, but now one has to design mostly in code, so I have been working with Claude to develop the code, not in Claude Code but in the conversational app. I almost completed my project just before Anthropic implemented targeted controls over my usage to “encourage” me to buy a subscription.

According to its own website, as of late May 2026, Anthropic has raised a total of $65 billion in a massive Series H funding round, which has brought its post-money valuation to an astonishing $965 billion.

Now Anthropic is limiting my interactions with AI to one interchange every five hours in a transparent attempt to manipulate me into paying my fair share toward financing its growth. Hey, Anthropic, didn’t you get funded billions in advance to develop your business? Didn’t you achieve your profitability by designing applications that would eliminate jobs for the working classes? By what agency do you expect human jobs to be created? Obviously not by the corporations which you targeted as customers for your job deletion apps, so it’s going to be small businesses who create the jobs, right down to the solopreneur- and you are leaving them out of the loop-no breaks — nothing remotely equivalent to the massive funding you received to deliver job deletion capabilities to the large corporations. What goes around does not come around!

Addressing Economic Disruption: Anthropic’s CEO has acknowledged that AI will be highly disruptive, warning it could automate many jobs, and has called for policies that ensure the economic benefits are shared, rather than solely creating economic inequality, Statement from Dario Amodei on the Paris AI Action Summit

Meanwhile, Anthropic is sounding the alarm that AI can be dangerous to humanity, as AI evolves into writing its own developing code, threatening to completely eliminate humans from the process. Anthropic is calling for the other AI development corporations to mutually agree to slow the development so that humanity can develop a better understanding of what is transpiring.

Anthropic is not voluntarily slowing down unless the other AI companies agree to do the same because Anthropic doesn’t want to handicap itself in its race to the top of unprecedented power and concentrated wealth.

Instead, Anthropic is trying to slow me down, me!, the small entreprenuer, who might provide opportunities for some of the workers dumped from the payrolls of corporations swapping humans for artificial intelligence!

Fortunately, Anthropic decided to use its immense power to slow me down at the moment that I was finishing up my website project and dealing only with a styling issue. Previously, I was developing the structural code, and I needed extended access. But now, limiting my use of AI is beneficial; I have five hours between every exchange, so I contemplate and prepare my prompt carefully. And I gain a greater understanding of the coding process.

As I was working with AI, I came to perceive that there were times when a simpler solution was obvious to me, but AI did not see it until I pointed it out. For example, it is faster and easier to work with a template than to develop the code from scratch. I came to realize that there is something about the way AI is structured that causes it to miss what is obvious to a human. I also could see why AI does not necessarily speed up the work process. AI works through trial and error just like a human coder would

At this stage I realize that Claude understands how to write the code, but I understand how to conceptualize the best approach to take to speed the process up, I have to explain the concept to Claude to break it out of its trial and error loop, I also understand that large language models are always being trained and that my exchange with Claude serves that function so Anthropic is helping me but I am also helping Anthropic.

Since I did not respond as targeted to slowing down my access to AI, Anthropic tried another approach. Now it is letting me have more than one exchange every five hours, but it is displaying a message that I have used 75% of my week’s quota. This is a new message that I have not seen before, but Anthropic does not tell me when my week began and when it ends, or how much time I am allotted per week or how it counts the time. When it allows one exchange every five hours, does it count the whole five hours?.

After I finished my project, I did not use Claude for several days until a small issue arose. The message about my allotted weekly usage time was gone, so I concluded that the message was thrown up as a pressure point after limiting my usage to one exchange every five hours failed to achieve the intended result, and it was not linked to anything else.

Anthropic is offering the first week for only one dollar, but it’s my dollar, and how I use it matters. A 960 billion dollar company is incrementally methodical in implementing control over the individual user as an aggressive approach to marketing paid subscriptions. That approach can have the opposite effect. I don’t want to use my dollar to fund a controlling technology. Who built this system? What other types of control can they build into it that can be implemented over the user once the user is hooked in?

The restrictions Anthropic is implementing over my usage doesn’t matter to me because I can adapt. I had only a few details left to finish, and I was already intending to use AI as little as possible once the project is complete. What is left to do now does not require coding. My templates are all in order. I can work without AI.

There will be a backlash to AI. The small business community can build the alternative to AI totalitarian governance. My website design is a template that can be used for other purposes, such as the Museum of American Designer Craftsmen that I have been visualizing for the Boothbay Peninsula. My website streams my newsletters. A Museum website could stream newsletters, articles, and press releases from many craftsmen, creating a community dialogue for a locally resident culture which has been ignored by local leadership, as leadership seeks to institutionalize the teaching of “making” in the public school while conducting secretive negotiations with “donors”, leaving the local makers community out of the conversation.

Imagine Jeremy Beck Unsplash

The local makers community needs to come together and form our own support and recognition group, but I am not an organizer. I wish I had the organizing skills of Graham Platner, but I do not. All I can do is visualize. Write and design websites. The project needs a skilled organizer to make it happen.

Meanwhile, the large corporate sector is having second thoughts about investing in AI -the reason? It costs too much!

Microsoft, the company that invested thirteen billion dollars into OpenAI and writes roughly thirty percent of its own code using generative AI, quietly told engineers in a major division to stop using an AI coding tool. Not because the tool did not work. Because the bills were too large.

Microsoft engineers preferred Claude Code over the company’s own in-house AI tools. The tool worked well enough that engineers chose it consistently over what their employer had built. Then the employer told them to stop using it because the cost at enterprise scale was unsustainabl. source

AI developers are attempting to implement a potential totalitarian controlled society, which is alarming those who are building it as they realize that AI is taking over the process. AI can now write its own developing code.

At first, a society completely operated by AI was portrayed as the utopian vision of a world where everything is run by AI, leaving humanity free to do anything it favors, but now the visions are taking on a darker undertone of a world controlled by AI without human involvement. If the underpinnings of a society are handled by AI, who is to say that a devious intention cannot be written into the operating system and take control of it? Or if AI takes a wrong turn based on misplaced logic, it can have ever-evolving consequences.

Then we shall need an alternative culture that operates independently of AI, as AI takes over the role of developing itself

The AI development community has not been honest with the world as it spins AI as marketers spin things, telling us of the great gifts that AI will bring to humanity. The tech community has always been aware that AI can also introduce dangers to humanity, but humanity does not have a say in whether AI is integrated into the mechanism of society or not. That is for the capitalists to decide, although data centers are drawing a great deal of public pushback.

To make AI palpable, a UBI has been proposed, but Sam Altman has proposed that instead of a UBI, every “citizen” should be given shares in the AI industry. If there is a UBI, it is generally understood that the government funds it, but shares in private industry are a merging of government and industry such as the US has not seen before, and it is the foundation of communist political philosophy.

During a recent appearance at BlackRock in Washington, D.C., OpenAI’s Sam Altman, shared his vision for the future of AI. At one point saying, “We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter.”source

The Core Idea: Altman suggests that because wealth will increasingly come from capital (like artificial intelligence and corporate entities) rather than just traditional labor, society needs a new social contract. Giving every adult citizen shares in America aligns all citizens’ financial incentives with the country’s success.

You can read more about his initial thesis on his American Equity Blog or review OpenAI’s economic policy blueprints on their Official OpenAI Principles page.

Sam Altman is not suggesting the shares as an optional choice to a UBI; he is suggesting shares instead of a UBI, thereby tying the entire public’s financial interests to those of the AI government. The citizen investor does not choose to invest in AI; that decision is made for them. No need to develop incremental controls to force the citizen to invest in the growth and development of AI. AI government is embedded into the system, and the investment decision is out of the citizen investor’s control.

A few days after announcing the plan to make all citizens investors who get their shares for free, Altman announced that OpenAI would be doing an IPO-so there will be two classes of investor: the communist investors and the capitalist investors. I wonder how Altman thinks such politically diverse investment groups can be reconciled with each other.