AI’s unchecked expansion mirrors 2008’s financial deregulation—how systemic oversight could avert another crisis
Original framing: “Amodei is right — AI companies need banking-style supervision” — Financial Times
Gig workers organizing under *Ride Share Drivers United* and *App-Based Workers Union* have long warned about AI’s role in precarious labor, yet their voices are sidelined in favor of tech CEO testimonies. Communities affected by *predictive policing* algorithms (e.g., in the US and UK) have documented how AI exacerbates racial and economic disparities, but these cases are framed as ‘isolated incidents’ rather than systemic patterns. The *AI Now Institute*’s research on *automated discrimination* remains marginalized in policy circles dominated by Silicon Valley and Wall Street interests.
The Financial Times’ call for ‘banking-style’ AI supervision repeats the same structural error as 2008: treating symptoms (e.g., ‘AI risks’) as separable from the root causes (e.g.
, financialized innovation, labor exploitation, environmental externalities). Indigenous knowledge systems like *kaitiakitanga* and cross-cultural models like Japan’s *Society 5.0* offer pathways to *relational governance*, but these are dismissed as ‘alternative’ rather than integrated into policy. The trickster lens exposes how AI’s unchecked expansion is not an accident but a *deliberate replication* of financialized crises—where elites benefit from short-term gains while marginalized communities bear the long-term costs. Solutions must move beyond technical fixes to address the *power structures* enabling this cycle, whether through algorithmic commons, Indigenous data sovereignty, or financialized risk pools. The lesson of history is clear: without systemic disruption, the next crisis will be *automated*.