On June 26, 2026, the Washington Post reported:
"OpenAI says US government will vet users of its latest AI model."
This is not a regulatory milestone. This is the moment I warned about in February 2023—and it validates every principle in Parekh's Law of Chatbots and UNARAI.
I write as someone who has spent three years building the global framework for what AI governance should actually look like. It is not what OpenAI is doing.
What OpenAI's "Government Vetting" Actually Means
The surface claim: US government officials will review and approve who gets access to advanced AI.
What it really means:
- A single nation's government controls who on Earth can think with cutting-edge AI
- Access becomes a geopolitical weapon, not a technology
- Researchers, activists, and citizens in "disfavored" nations lose access to frontier intelligence
- A precedent is set: vetting > transparency
What I Proposed Instead (Feb 2023 → May 2023)
Parekh's Law of Chatbots (Full Blog — Feb 25, 2023)
A transparent, universal framework requiring:
| Parekh's Law Principle | What It Prevents | What OpenAI is Doing Instead |
|---|---|---|
| (A) No AI output can be misinformative / malicious / slanderous / dangerous | Chatbot safety standards are global and transparent | Gov vetting of users, not outputs—no global standard |
| (B) Human feedback mechanism; chatbot improves from feedback loops | Accountability built into the system | No transparency into what gov approves or rejects |
| (C) Built-in controls to prevent harmful generation & distribution | Safety is architectural, not gatekeeping | Vetting is political, arbitrary, changeable |
| (D) Chatbots cannot initiate conversations with humans | Human autonomy is preserved | Gov decides who gets access—human choice eliminated |
| (E) Chatbots cannot chat with other chatbots (no "soliloquy") | Prevents autonomous AI loops driving misinformation | Gov creates de facto soliloquy: AI talking only to approved users |
| (G) If an answer violates safety rules, politely refuse | Transparency about why something is blocked | Gov vetting is opaque; no explanation given |
The core difference: My law makes systems trustworthy through architecture and transparency. OpenAI makes access trustworthy through gatekeeping by political power.
UNARAI — United Nations Agency for Regulating AI (Full Blog — May 30, 2023)
A multilateral, democratic alternative:
| UNARAI Principle | Why It Matters | Why OpenAI's Model Fails |
|---|---|---|
| Representatives from all UN member states | Governance is global and democratic | US vetting means US rules dominate |
| Human control: AI developed to respect human autonomy | Humans choose; systems obey | Gov chooses; humans lose choice |
| Transparency: AI systems accountable to the public | Everyone understands the rules | Vetting criteria are secret |
| Non-discrimination: AI cannot discriminate based on nationality/belief | Access is universal | Access is politically determined |
| Enforcement handles national governments, not a corporation | Power stays distributed | OpenAI holds power; US government uses it |
What UNARAI would say about OpenAI's move: This is exactly what we were built to prevent.
The Deeper Crisis: Government Vetting + Corporate Control = Surveillance
OpenAI's agreement does something unprecedented: it marries corporate monopoly with state gatekeeping.
- OpenAI has centralized intelligence (one model, one company)
- US government has centralized political power (one nation, one veto)
- Together, they control who on Earth can access advanced AI reasoning
This was the risk I outlined in Feb 2023:
"It is just not enough for all kinds of individuals / organizations / institutions to attempt to solve this problem in an uncoordinated / piecemeal / fragmented fashion. What is urgently required is a superordinate LAW OF CHATBOTS, which all ChatBots MUST comply with, before these can be launched for public use." — Parekh's Law of Chatbots
Instead, what we got was:
- ✗ No international law
- ✗ No transparency standards
- ✗ No human-centered principles
- ✓ One government controls access
What Should Have Happened Instead
Step 1: Adopt Parekh's Law of Chatbots (transparent, safety-focused regulation)
All AI systems would comply with universal standards:
- Safety checks built into architecture (not political vetting)
- Human feedback loops (not gov approval)
- Clear refusal policies (not secret criteria)
- International Authority for Chatbots Approval (IACA) with reps from all nations
Step 2: Establish UNARAI (democratic global governance)
A UN agency would set:
- Standards (not USA alone)
- Enforcement mechanisms (independent, not political)
- Principles (human rights-based, not geopolitical)
Step 3: Add Cognitive Liberty Protection (Thought Donor Union Charter — April 2026)
As AI moves toward neural interfaces and thought data training, protect cognitive liberty:
- No person's thoughts can be vettedby a government
- No gov access to neural training data (only anonymised gradients)
- Constitutional safeguards around thought-based AI
Why This Matters Now (June 2026)
OpenAI's move sets a precedent that will be copied:
- China will follow: Chinese gov vets users of Alibaba/Baidu AI
- EU will follow: EU gov vets users of European models
- Russia will follow: Russian gov vets users of Russian AI
- India will face pressure: To vet users of Indian AI, creating a fragmented, surveilled world
Result: A global internet of gatekept intelligence, where access is political, not meritocratic.
What India (and the World) Should Do Now
1. Adopt Parekh's Law of Chatbots as National & International Standard
- Transparency in what AI systems can/cannot do
- No arbitrary gov access
- Safety through architecture, not gatekeeping
2. Establish UNARAI Under UN
- Democratic representation from all nations
- Binding standards on AI development & deployment
- Enforcement independent of any single government
3. Protect Cognitive Liberty Via Constitutional Law
Thought Donor Union Charter principles:
- Neural data as sacred, not commodity
- Government access to thoughts = constitutional violation
- Compensation for thought donors, controlled by donors—not states
4. Lead Multilateral Response
- G20 resolution on AI governance (not unilateral vetting)
- BRICS statement opposing government-controlled AI access
- UNESCO follow-up on Thought Donor Union model
The Historical Parallel
In 2016, I warned that taxi rides would be monopolized if we didn't build cooperative alternatives. Bharat Taxi was born in 2026—zero-commission, driver-owned.
Today, I warn that AI thinking itself will be monopolized if we don't build democratic alternatives NOW.
OpenAI's vetting is the moment of inflection. The choice is:
- Path A: Gatekept, geopolitical, fragmented AI (USA, China, EU, Russia each controlling their own)
- Path B: Transparent, democratic, universal AI governed through law (Parekh's Law + UNARAI + Thought Donor Union)
India and the Global South must choose Path B, and loudly reject Path A.
My Call to Action
To Policymakers:
- Fast-track adoption of international AI safety standards (Parekh's Law of Chatbots)
- Push for UNARAI establishment at the UN (not corporate vetting)
- Enshrine cognitive liberty in constitutional law
To Civil Society:
- Demand transparency about who vets AI access and why
- Oppose national gatekeeping; demand international standards
- Support the Thought Donor Union model for neural data protection
To Companies:
- Publish your safety standards publicly (like Parekh's Law clauses)
- Refuse arbitrary government vetting
- Support multilateral governance (UNARAI) over bilateral control
Sources: My Three-Year Roadmap for Democratic AI Governance
| # | Framework | Date | Core Concept |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Parekh's Law of Chatbots | Feb 2023 | Universal safety standards for all AI systems; transparent, not gatekept |
| 2 | UNARAI | May 2023 | UN-based, democratic global governance for AI; principles over power |
| 3 | EU adopts Parekh's Laws of Chatbots | June 2023 | Vindication: global recognition of framework principles |
| 4 | Thought Donor Union Charter | April 2026 | Constitutional safeguards for cognitive liberty; neural data governance |
| 5 | AI and the New Statecraft | May 2026 | How AI reshapes governance; need for independent audits & transparency |
Warm regards,
Hemen Parekh
No comments:
Post a Comment