Who Gets to Define the Rules for AI?

• • Cohere CEO Aidan Gomez argues against a small cartel of elites controlling AI rules.


• • The company advocates for evidence-based standards and transparent governance.


• • The discussion centers on whether authority belongs to corporations, governments, or broader standards bodies.

Context
Cohere is positioning itself within the global push for AI governance by aligning with European regulatory frameworks. This movement seeks to establish formal methodologies for assessing AI safety and value judgments.

Christian Perspective
True authority is derived from God and natural law rather than man-made consensus or bureaucratic standards. Any attempt to define "safety" or "values" through secular, evidence-based frameworks risks codifying humanistic degeneracy. We must ensure AI remains a tool for truth rather than a mechanism for enforcing worldly ideologies.

Implications
If globalist entities or European-style regulatory bodies set these rules, they will likely impose DEI and progressive social engineering on American technology. This threatens the ability of Christian families to use technology in accordance with biblical morality. Control over AI norms is essentially control over the digital architecture of the soul.

Broader Trends
This reflects a larger struggle between national sovereignty and the rise of a globalist technocracy. The push for centralized AI governance mirrors the erosion of the nation-state in favor of international regulatory bodies. It is a move toward a managed society where elites dictate the boundaries of acceptable thought.

Takeaway
Americans must reject any AI governance that subordinates national interests to international standards. We must champion decentralized, open-source tools like Bitcoin and private AI to preserve free speech and traditional values. Protecting the digital frontier is essential to defending the demographic and spiritual integrity of the nation.