Through the course of my reporting, I would come to conclude something even more startling. Not even in Silicon Valley did other companies and investors move until after ChatGPT to funnel unqualified sums into scaling. That included Google and DeepMind, OpenAI’s original rival. It was specifically OpenAI, with its billionaire origins, unique ideological bent, and Altman’s singular drive, network, and fundraising talent, that created a ripe combination for its particular vision to emerge and take over. “I get the sense that Sam is the most ambitious person on the planet,” a former employee says. In other words, everything OpenAI did was the opposite of inevitable; the explosive global costs of its massive deep learning models, and the perilous race it sparked across the industry to scale such models to planetary limits, could only have ever arisen from the one place it actually did.

A few hours later, I published a story for MIT Technology Review with the first detailed account of the paper’s contents. The signatories on the open letter would quickly double, reaching nearly 7,000 people from academia, civil society, and industry, including almost 2,700 Google employees. On December 9, as protests continued, Google CEO Sundar Pichai issued an apology. “We need to accept responsibility for the fact that a prominent Black, female leader with immense talent left Google unhappily,” he wrote. “Dr. Gebru is an expert in an important area of AI Ethics that we must continue to make progress on—progress that depends on our ability to ask ourselves challenging questions.”

Against this backdrop, OpenAI began the first phase of its project in late 2021. Under the code names PBJ1, PBJ2, PBJ3, and PBJ4, it thrust teams of Sama workers into more traumatic content-moderation work, for on average between $1.46 and $3.74 an hour. Workers had no idea for whom or why they were doing the project, kept in the dark under the nondisclosure terms of the contract, common in the data annotation industry. What they did know was what was in front of them: the hundreds of thousands of grotesque text-based descriptions that they needed to read and sort into categories of severity. Was it violence or extremely graphic violence, harassment or hate speech, child sexual abuse or bestiality?

Gradually, the work broke many of the workers, the impacts radiating beyond each individual to the people who depended on them in their communities. Only after the release of ChatGPT would they begin to grasp what exactly they had paid for with their peace of mind.

Scale downgraded Kenya to a Group 5 designation: blacklisted. There was also another reason to exit Kenya. By then, Scale was moving on to a new focus, following the demands of the AI industry. OpenAI and its competitors were increasingly searching for highly educated workers to perform RLHF—doctors, coders, physicists, people with PhDs. So went the profit-chasing progression of chatbot development. Those willing to pay money for chatbots were not casual consumers but businesses that expected tools to perform complex tasks such as in science and software development. Kenya did not fulfill the new labor demand. Scale was now recruiting a fresh workforce primarily in the US with a new worker-facing platform called Outlier, offering as much as forty dollars an hour.

It was yet another stark illustration of the logic of AI empires. Behind promises of their technologies enhancing productivity, unlocking economic freedom, and creating new jobs that would ameliorate automation, the present-day reality has been the opposite. Companies pad their bottom lines, while the most economically vulnerable lose out and more and more highly educated people become ventriloquists for chatbots.

The empire’s devaluing of the human labor that serves it is also just a canary: It foretells how the technologies produced atop this logic will devalue the labor of everyone else. In fact, for the artists, writers, and coders whose labor the empires of AI turned into free training data, that is already happening.

Scale’s decision would send Winnie and her family spiraling. By then Millicent had lost her job and Remotasks had been the only thing keeping them afloat. Now they were struggling to feed their kids. Winnie was terrified they would soon be evicted. In her inbox, the email Scale sent to inform workers of the shutdown was cold and clinical: “We are discontinuing operations in your current location,” it read. “You have been off-boarded from your current project.”

The critiques that I lay out in this book of OpenAI’s and Silicon Valley’s broader vision are not by any means meant to dismiss AI in its entirety. What I reject is the dangerous notion that broad benefit from AI can only be derived from—indeed, will ever emerge from—a vision for the technology that requires the complete capitulation of our privacy, our agency, and our worth, including the value of our labor and art, toward an ultimately imperial centralization project.

Te Hiku shows us another way. It imagines how AI and its development could be exactly the opposite. Models can be small and task specific, their training data contained and knowable, ridding the incentives for widespread exploitative and psychologically harmful labor practices and the all-consuming extractivism of producing and running massive supercomputers. The creation of AI can be community driven, consensual, respectful of local context and history; its application can uplift and strengthen marginalized communities; its governance can be inclusive and democratic.