Mark Cuban on Artificial Intelligence, Elon Musk and the Impact of Big Tech on Society and Elections

On October 19, the world’s richest man, Tesla and SpaceX CEO and X CTO and executive chairman Elon Musk, who supports former President Donald Trump, announced cash incentives for voters in swing states. Specifically, he gave $100 to voters who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Musk also offered $1 million every day until the election through a drawing to a registered voter who signed a petition in one of seven swing states.

The move sparked much debate about the legality of such incentives, including a tweet from Dallas Mavericks co-owner, TV personality and ultra-rich entrepreneur Mark Cuban, who questioned whether the scheme violated voting or gambling laws in Pennsylvania.

Cuban, a former supporter of Trump’s original presidential ambitions and now a supporter of Vice President Kamala Harris, is at odds with Musk not only on policy but on a variety of other issues, including social media and artificial intelligence. Musk signed an open letter dated March 2023 calling on developers to pause training of artificial intelligence systems more powerful than ChatGPT-4 for six months, citing “grave risks to society and humanity.” Cuban, on the other hand, believes it is critical to limit government regulation of AI so that the United States can maintain its leadership position in technology and maintain its economic and military position in the world.

I interviewed Cuban via email to get his thoughts on some of these issues, including the tech sector’s impact on politics and government.

The resulting interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Sarah Goodarzi: Lately you’ve been campaigning for Kamala Harris and against Donald Trump. Why?

Mark Cuban: I believe Kamala Harris will be a much better president for our country.

Gudarzi: Over the past few years, several technology companies such as Google, Apple, Meta, Oracle, X, OpenAI, have amassed enormous power and influence over the flow of information and communications, among others. Their decisions about what is visible can affect everything from public health to politics to elections. Artificial intelligence looks set to further concentrate power in the hands of a relatively small number of technology companies and their leaders. Do you think this concentration of power is a problem? If so, what can be done in a democratic system to help solve this problem?

Cuban: These are two questions: the first concerns algorithms, especially in social networks. I think this is a problem. It creates our own echo chamber, where the algorithm constantly sends more of what you’ve already consumed, trying to get you to consume even more. Since most of them are unique to the user, each of us has our own personal wormhole. I’m not sure there’s anything you can do (in this regard) because creating an algorithm is just as worthy of free speech as writing a book.

As for AI, it’s too early to say. This is similar to the early days of mainframe computers, when each manufacturer required significant and expensive resources. Over time, it became cheaper and cheaper to create increasingly powerful computers and software, making them mass-produced or purchased.

The same can be said for various forms of AI. Now this is really expensive and resource-intensive. Dominance in artificial intelligence is necessary for the United States to maintain our economic and military position in the world, so it is the prerogative of the government and our largest companies.

I think that over time, the cost-benefit curve for the hardware needed to run today’s most advanced AI options will match what we’ve seen over the last 50 years or more. As the price drops, it will become more affordable for all but the most advanced models used in the military and new applications. For the rest of us, there will be tens of millions of models that we will create and use as consumers and businesses.

Gudarzi: What do you think happens when someone who owns a social media platform, like Elon Musk, not only removes barriers that combat misinformation and misinformation and limits hate speech, but also decides to publicly endorse a political candidate? Is this a problem, or is Musk just doing what any media owner would do?

Cuban: Owning a social media platform is certainly energizing for Musk, Zuck (Mark Zuckerberg) or anyone else, there’s no doubt about it. But it’s not that different from what Rupert Murdoch has at his disposal.

Everyone wants to be Charles Foster Kane, and eventually everyone will want their own sled.

Gudarzi: You questioned the legality of Musk’s latest scheme to offer cash incentives to voters. This move is troubling at best. Should there be clear laws and better checks and balances to limit such actions?

Cuban: It depends on the residents of each state. I’m not a fan of what he does. But I also believe it will backfire. It seems desperate and reduces the value people place on their votes.

Gudarzi: In 2022, Musk tweeted (now X): “…my historical party affiliation has been Independent and actual voting history prior to this year has been solidly Democratic.” Likewise, other Silicon Valley members such as former PayPal COO David Sachs, who previously supported Hillary Clinton, are now supporting Donald Trump. Historically, Silicon Valley has been more liberal. Why do you think these people are now rallying around the former president?

Cuban: When questions arose about Biden’s abilities, it made sense for them to switch to Trump, especially since many believe they can influence him. As for Kamala, I think they regret it, but they identify so publicly with Trump that they feel they have no choice but to stay with him. I guess they feel that “at worst it’s only four years” and at best they can influence him to do what they want.

Gudarzi: Other social media owners who are not as vocal about their political allegiances as Mark Zuckerberg can and still use their influence in other ways, such as by hiding content and controlling the number of views a post receives. Social media platforms have positive influences, but they have had some negative impacts on everything from politics and democracy to mental health. Do you think the United States government needs to increase regulation of social media? If so, how?

Cuban: First we need to understand how to do this. I think the best first step is that if there are users on the platform who are 16 years of age or younger, they should publish all the source code of their algorithms and make an HTML page with a link to any videos or images shown to the child available to the parents. see at any time. Nothing tells you more about a child than their social media on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube.

Gudarzi: Let’s take it one step further: since a handful of people and companies control so much technology that is relevant to people’s daily lives, trade, communications and the military, what happens when they decide to challenge governments? Musk, for example, resisted when asked by the Brazilian government to rein in problematic content on X. He eventually gave in after a judge ordered the platform blocked in the country. What happens if he doesn’t give up (for example, many countries rely on Starlink satellites)? Are we then looking at a society in which billionaires – with no real government or military experience – end up with more power than governments? Why is this problematic?

Cuban: I don’t think it’s much different from the situation when three TV channels, one or two newspapers and a few radio stations controlled all the media. Rupert Murdoch is as powerful, if not more powerful, than any of them.

Regarding technology: the military should be equal in technology. I understand that Elon has enormous influence because of SpaceX and to a lesser extent Starlink, but there are competitors. We need to support them. Technology is changing fast enough that by the time the feds come up with their first response, the world will already be a different place. We need to make sure we have a president who understands technology well enough to make sure AI wins, just like Kennedy wanted to go to the moon.

Gudarzi: You have advocated limiting government regulation of AI in favor of innovation to ensure the United States beats China in the AI ​​race. Are you concerned about the role of AI in the spread of disinformation (election-related or not) and what solutions, if any, do you think could be effective in combating deepfakes and AI disinformation? Do you see any role for government there?

Cuban: There are rules “Name”, “Image”, “Similarity”. There are copyright and trademark rules. We need to adapt them to the digital age just as we did with digital copyright law.

It is impossible to train an AI model well using only data generated by another model or publicly available materials. For training it is necessary to use a wide base of information. Almost all of this is copyrighted material. If we enforce these laws, I think the underlying models will pay IP owners the same way Netflix pays film and TV studios.

Gudarzi: Are you afraid that your opposition to Donald Trump will have negative consequences if he wins the presidential election?

Cuban: I don’t know.

Gudarzi: Will the Dallas Mavericks agree to visit the White House after winning the 2025 NBA Championship, regardless of who wins the presidential election in November?

Cuban: It will depend on the players. But I would guess so. Let’s hope we have to make a decision.