FREEDOM BY DESIGN: A PODCAST ABOUT AI, LIBERTY AND AUTHENTICITY

Hi everyone, I am Ken Chan, the

Authenticity expert. Each week our

Freedom by Design podcast will dive deep

into one current event to discuss and we

will have our Digital Freedom Channel's

own experts to offer perspectives that

spread across historical, legal,

psychological and global leadership.

This week's episode is one that you don't

want to miss if you want to learn about a

I and why it matters for companies and

their board and executives. To be

authentic in any important

decision-making process and have a

kinetic communications plan. I hope you

enjoy this podcast and click subscribe

so

This is Freedom by Design. In each

episode, we scout around all four corners

of the world, providing 3 perspectives

across historical, humanistic, and

economic lenses, discussing 2

interrelated questions, helping you

design your own digital freedom destiny.

I'm Sam Adams, show creator at Freedom

Channel, historian and global political

analyst. I bring the facts, the context,

and the implications you didn't ask for,

but will definitely need at your next

cocktail party. With me is my co-host

Ken Chan, our executive producer, our

very own Andy Cohen at Freedom Channel.

But for the digital world, let's begin

Thanks, Sam. That's exactly why we're

our design.

here, because digital power isn't

abstract. It's about leadership,

control, and the real world impact of the

decisions behind closed doors. Our job?

To break it down. Who's making the rules?

Who's bending them?Why are they acting

this way?And most importantly, how does

it affect your digital freedom?In each

episode, we will spend about 15 minutes

on a burning hot topic of the week in a

conversation between me and Ken.

Then Doctor Carmen Diaz will join us and

lead the conversation about the second

topic, which is more around the

development of digital freedom, A I, and

how it may impact our human lives and

emotions. Ken, what's on the table this

week?

This week we will dive into Open AI's

The Open AI Board's communication

board decision to turn down Elon Musk's

strategy, or lack thereof,

$98 billion dollar shotgun wedding

demonstrates a significant lack of

relational agility. They've missed a

proposal. Did they make the right call

crucial opportunity to build trust and

and have they convinced us that it is the

transparency with their stakeholders.

right call?After that, Carmen and I are

The board's reliance on legalistic,

going to use the Auth Q framework to

analyze the authenticity metrics around

minimalist responses created a vacuum of

the board's action.

information, fueling speculation and

mistrust.

Finally, we have an extra special

one-on-one fireside chat when Sam caught

up with his high school friend. And our

Chief Science Correspondent at large,

Doctor Ibrahim Abdullah, to talk about

global AI arms race in light of deep

Sikhs rise from China.

So China is working smarter, not harder.

Does it mean that China wins the A I race?

Not necessarily. The more significant

aspect is what it reveals about the

global competitive landscape. India

provides an instructive comparison. India

possesses comparable technical talent

pools, but lacks structural integration.

First topic, Open AI Nonprofit

Board rejects Elon Musk's shotgun

wedding proposal to bring Open AI back to

its nonprofit root. Here's a quick

highlight of the rejection and some

background information for our audience.

Earlier this week, you, on behalf of your

clients, sent a letter to acquire all of

the assets of Open AI and to do so

imminently, subject to numerous

conditions. It

In any event, your client's proposal,

even as first presented, is not in the

best interests of Open AI's mission and

is rejected. The decision of the Open

AI Board on this matter is unanimous

and for our listeners, Open AI's

mission is to develop artificial general

intelligence AGI that benefits

all of humanity. And one of its board's

key responsibilities is to ensure that

its non-profit route and this mission

statement are carried through even as it

has been steadily transitioned into a

for-profit organization structure. Most

recently, a step it is pursuing is the

conversion of it for-profit arm into a

Delaware's Public Benefit Corporation,

PBC.

So the question is, has Open AI

board essentially gaslighting

itself, twisting its mission to justify

the exact profit-driven approach that was

created to prevent?Sam, what do you

think?Well, Ken, that's the question on

everyone's mind, isn't it?It certainly

smacks of institutional capture, if you

ask me. It reminds me of the Supreme

Court's infamous Plessy versus Ferguson

decision. Where the court claimed racial

segregation could somehow satisfy equal

protection under the Constitution. In

both cases, institutions seem to be

reinterpreting their core principles to

justify a contradictory outcome. But

let's not be too hasty. There's a genuine

tension here. Advancing AI technology

requires significant capital, and

attracting top talent isn't cheap. Ken,

is there a middle ground here that

balances the mission with the practical

realities of the AI arms race since they

won?I mean, they know that for any type

of technology companies,

especially in a competitive

landscape like AI that requires, you

know, a huge amount of capital

investments and talent, etc. the

needs for capital is real from day

one. So it's almost like

they are setting themselves for failure

and want to believe that you know by

setting up this type of golden share and

a safeguard approach could somehow spur

this conversations. At the end of the

day, I think it's a matter of time for

them to confront this. You're right to

point out the inherent challenge they

faced from the start. It's like they

built a dam knowing the river would

eventually flood. The historical pattern,

as you know, is unmistakable. Every

Guardian eventually becomes captured by

the very interests it was designed to

check. Open AI's nonprofit board holding

a golden share was supposed to be the

constitutional firewall between public

benefit and private profit. Now they're

arguing that pursuing profit through a

Delaware PBC structure somehow better

serves their nonprofit mission. That's

not reasoning, that's rationalization.

Could you maybe elaborate a little bit

more why these two things are actually

comparable and you know what happens

then in the Supreme Court case and maybe

that shed light to us in terms of how

this would resolve itself or actually

push the the conversation forward in a

positive manner?That's a great question,

Ken. The parallel I see between OpenAI's

situation and the Plessy v. Ferguson

Supreme Court decision lies in the

reinterpretation of core principles to

justify a contradictory outcome. In

Plessy V Ferguson, the Supreme Court

twisted the 14th Amendment's Equal

Protection Clause to justify racial

segregation, claiming that separate but

equal facilities were constitutional.

Similarly, Open AI's board is twisting

its founding mission of advancing AI for

all humanity to justify its

transformation into yet another. We are

all human and you know, humans, you know,

depending on how to see it, they can say

they are intrinsically evil and logical

or they are just, you know, pure at heart

and just want to do a good thing. And you

know, in any type of decisions like this,

there's no black and white answer, right?

And so the way that I like to think

about it is,You know, has there been a

systematic analysis of OK, what

exactly does this, you know, 5

words, right, like advancing AI for

humanity exactly means like what are the

metrics that they are looking at and how

do they come to the conclusions?Is there

any evidence that substantiate those for

the moments that you know, they have to

really focus on the bottom line and

report to a broader, you know,

stakeholder base?You know the

and the attraction of a much bigger

working populations as

employees, right?The the

decision making slowly

eek out and then, you know, think about

Google, think about Facebook. That's a

crucial point, Ken. Defining advancing AI

for humanity is like trying to nail Jelly

to a wall. It's subjective, open to

interpretation, and easily manipulated to

fit a predetermined outcome. Take Google,

for example. Their do no evil mantra,

once a guiding principle, has been

watered down to if it makes users better,

then the end justifies the means in terms

of data collection. Facebook's connecting

everyone conveniently now allows everyone

to create their own avatars so that there

are more ad inventories to sell eyeballs.

These examples highlight the slippery

slope of mission creep. What starts as a

noble aspiration can easily become a

justification for profit driven

decisions. It's a difficult balance and

one that Open AI's board seems to be

struggling with. Do you think there's any

way to prevent this kind of mission creep

or is it an inevitable consequence of

growth and success?I do

think that there is, you know, there

there are examples that

could could be the counter arguments if

you think about Apple for instance, you

know. You know, everyone thought that,

you know, after after

Steve Jobs, he might just get into the

same band as Google and Facebook. But

then you see how Tim Cook exhibited that

classic authentic leadership, right?And

and his own personal experience of, you

know, coming out in a difficult

situation and then turn that into the

ethos of Apple's, you know, protecting

privacy for others. That's a

that's a very, very high

class act to continue to manage and

maintain. But I'm not saying that it's

easy to do. And you know on the other

hand you see Amazon which you know

that while they are continue to provide

value and you know focus on customer.

A first satisfaction and that's

evidence even at this now and age

that is at the expense of their other

stakeholders, you know, specifically the

labor forces, right. So how do you manage

that is a is a is a class of

combination around authentic leadership,

you know, communications as well as

just you knowBuilding those framework

from within, there needs to be a genuine

commitment from leadership, a clear

framework for decision making, and a

willingness to prioritize values over

short term profits. But let's bring this

back to open AI. Given what we've

discussed, do you think there's any

chance they can course correct or are

they already too far down the path of

prioritizing profit over their original

mission?It is

still relatively early in the development

of AI cycles. So you know,

focusing on growing, getting the best

talent and continue the lead of the

beachhead is net net, I think

the right call, right?And you already see

that like let's just say on on image

creation, the journey is like way

ahead and you see you know,

Musket's AI has a fantastic image

creation. capabilities because the

platform has captured so many images you

know throughout the years. So I think

from my perspective, it's the right call.

The question is around disclosure,

around how are they going to continue to

measure it. And to your point, having

those in place from within and

continue to stick to those missions.

That's a pragmatic perspective, Ken. It

acknowledges the competitive realities of

the AI landscape and the need for open AI

to remain a leader. But it also places a

heavy burden on the board to ensure that

profit motives don't completely eclipse

their stated mission. It's really around,

you know, the consistency or what we like

to call it congruence to actually make

that a reality, right?What you said, you

you set a belief should be consistently

reflected on based on your actions.

Tim Cook cared about privacy. He

expanded it. You know, in Apple's ethos

that are very, very clear examples of

congruence. So, but I want to

react back to a point that you made

earlier, which is while I think that it

is the right call right now to invest

in this talent competition, I am

concerned whether or not they are just

looking at the world with a traditional

Silicon Valley lens of, you know,

getting the best talent to build the

fastest, the meanest, the. you know, the

greatest, most perfect AI,

and whether or not that in itself is

really what humanity needs. I do see what

you mean. As we've seen with how

technology shapes our digital lives,

frictionless perfection often makes the

experience less engaging and less

interesting. There's compelling research

showing that when technology removes all

obstacles, we become passive consumers

rather than active participants. Zombies

scrolling mindlessly through feeds

designed to maximize our attention rather

than our well-being. The most perfect AI

might actually deliver the least human

experience. What a perfect line. You

know, it reminded me of someone saying if

I can be perfect, why do I want to be

authentic?And I always thought the

counter arguments should be if you can be

authentic, why would you want to be

perfect?And that's that really is the

cross of the question, right?Like which

version of the future we want?

And how do we reach that?That's a

powerful way to frame it, Ken. If you can

be authentic, why would you want to be

perfect?It really does get to the heart

of the matter. Are we striving for a

flawless, optimized future or one that

embraces the messy, unpredictable nature

of human experience?The power of AI is so

pervasive that this isn't just an

abstract philosophical debate. It has

real world implications for how we live,

work and interact with each other. And I

think in terms of take away, like the

overarching point is this. You know, even

though none of us really have a lot of

impact and ability to

influence, but as we kind of pointed out

how, you know, pervasive A I would be

in our day-to-day lives. And so this is

the opening bit in my mind of who is

going to control and decide the future

of A I. And you know, if you hear us

as you know, kind of discussing either

you agree or disagree if the version of A

I should be the better for us and meaner

one or should be. Should it be more

humanistic and, you know, more empathetic

to the human experience?Either

case, it is important for you to

have those opinions heard, just

like our most recent election, where the

majority of the population has

finally said enough is enough in terms of

government overreaching. So that's how my

take away is. So Sam, what about you?What

would be your take away here?I agree

wholeheartedly, Ken. This isn't just

about open A I or Elon Musk. It's about

who controls the A I shaping your digital

experience, whether it's optimized for

your well-being or for maximizing

engagement and profit. Look at how

algorithmic decisions already affect what

news you see, job offers you get, or even

how your insurance premiums are

calculated. My take away is this

be critical, be informed, and demand

transparency. Don't blindly trust

institutions to act in your best

interest. Question their motives,

scrutinize their decisions, and make your

voice heard. The future of AI is too

important to be left in the hands of a

select few. When we come back, Doctor

Carmen Diaz and I will talk more around

the authenticity framework and how we

overlay it for the board decisions.

And then there will be a special bonus.

The fireside chat is Sam you're

conducting with Doctor A. Would you want

to elaborate that?Certainly, Ken. In our

fireside chat, Doctor Abdallah and I will

be diving deeper into the global

competition in a I, focusing specifically

on China's deep seek and other

competitors rapidly advancing. We'll

explore the implications of this

competition for the future of a I

development and the challenges of

balancing innovation with ethical

considerations. It's a conversation you

won't want to miss exactly.

So please stay tuned. If you enjoy our

conversations, subscribe. I look

forward to continuing the conversation

after the break.