The Billionaire Problem: Why Corporate Governance Can’t Save Us from AI’s Consequences

The recent Musk v. Altman trial has reignited a long-standing debate about the role of individual billionaires in shaping the future of artificial intelligence (AI). Despite being dismissed on technical grounds, the case highlights a deeper issue: that AI safety and governance are being entrusted to corporate leaders rather than robust regulatory frameworks.

This assumption – that corporate leaders can make decisions about AI safety without oversight or accountability – is fundamentally flawed. The OpenAI debacle serves as a stark reminder of this problem. Despite various iterations of its corporate structure, from nonprofit to public benefit corporation, the interests of investors and shareholders ultimately prevailed over OpenAI’s mission-driven objectives.

The firing of Sam Altman by his own board demonstrates how profit can trump even well-intentioned efforts to regulate AI. Congress and regulatory bodies are struggling to keep pace with AI development, leaving a power vacuum that corporations have filled. While corporate leaders write safety policies and guidelines, these initiatives are often driven by self-interest rather than a genuine commitment to responsible innovation.

The trial’s focus on individual personalities obscured the more pressing issue: that AI governance is being reduced to high-stakes decisions made by individuals with conflicting interests. This is not a matter of good intentions or bad, but a systemic failure to establish robust frameworks for regulating AI.

To address this crisis, we must demand better from corporations and their leaders. Specifically, AI companies should develop safety policies through transparent, documented processes that involve expert input, identified decision-makers, and reasoned justifications. These policies must be implemented through clearly assigned operational responsibility, with senior officers accountable for capability thresholds being crossed. Companies should also audit their own compliance and report results to a board committee with the independence and expertise to act.

Applying a social business judgment standard – which evaluates whether boards have taken their responsibilities seriously when making high-stakes decisions – can help ensure that companies make decisions worthy of the stakes. This approach does not require Congress to dictate what AI should or shouldn’t do; rather, it demands that the law ensure those making decisions inside companies do so responsibly.

The Oakland trial may have asked whether Elon Musk was wronged, but the real question is whether we, as a society, have been failed by the reliance on individual billionaires to safeguard AI’s future. We cannot afford to entrust our collective safety and well-being to corporate leaders’ whims. It’s time for corporations to write the rules of AI responsibly – with transparency, accountability, and a commitment to the greater good.

The opinions expressed in this commentary piece are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or beliefs of Fortune.com