Power and Governance in the Age of AI
Concentrated Big Tech power over AI infrastructure and standards directly shapes the governance environment Australian agencies must navigate.
Key points
- A small number of Big Tech firms control AI infrastructure, research incentives, and de facto governance standards globally.
- Industry self-regulation fills the vacuum left by absent global coordination, raising accountability questions for national regulators.
- Published March 2024 by a US think tank - analytical framing, not policy with direct APS application.
Summary
AI Now Institute's contribution to a New America forum argues that a small number of firms dominate AI development through control of cloud infrastructure, data, compute, and research incentives. This concentration, rooted in the surveillance business model, allows these companies to shape global AI governance through self-regulatory forums when national and international coordination is absent. The piece raises pointed questions for regulators about whether any single nation can generate sufficient regulatory friction to hold large AI firms accountable, and whether global governance bodies can play a meaningful coordinating role.
Implications for Australian agencies
- Consider APS policy and strategy teams may want to consider how vendor concentration in AI infrastructure affects Australia's regulatory leverage and procurement risk posture.
- Monitor Agencies engaged in AI governance work may want to monitor whether AI Now's framing on industry self-regulation informs future OECD, UN, or G20 AI governance discussions relevant to Australia.
Implications are AI-generated. Starting points, not advice.
"Power and Governance in the Age of AI" Source: AI Now Institute – Publications Published: 14 March 2024 URL: https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/power-and-governance-in-the-age-of-ai AI Now Institute's contribution to a New America forum argues that a small number of firms dominate AI development through control of cloud infrastructure, data, compute, and research incentives. This concentration, rooted in the surveillance business model, allows these companies to shape global AI governance through self-regulatory forums when national and international coordination is absent. The piece raises pointed questions for regulators about whether any single nation can generate sufficient regulatory friction to hold large AI firms accountable, and whether global governance bodies can play a meaningful coordinating role. Implications for Australian agencies: - [Consider] APS policy and strategy teams may want to consider how vendor concentration in AI infrastructure affects Australia's regulatory leverage and procurement risk posture. - [Monitor] Agencies engaged in AI governance work may want to monitor whether AI Now's framing on industry self-regulation informs future OECD, UN, or G20 AI governance discussions relevant to Australia. Retrieved from SIMS, 18 May 2026.