The price of AI should not be a private calculation
A price can be visible while the calculation behind it remains hidden. The same is true of a worker's pay or the public costs attached to a new data center. Two government initiatives approach that problem from different directions. The FTC has ordered nine companies to provide information about personal-data-based pricing and compensation. Its Section 6(b) study is compulsory, but it is not a finding that the recipients broke the law or all use the practices under examination. The order asks for information about methods, inputs and decisions—not merely a statement of good intentions. Britain's new Data Centre Covenant takes a different route. It encourages standards across the sector and ties additional government support for strategic projects to meeting tests. Those include energy-system costs and community benefits. The definition of strategic projects and further criteria are still forthcoming. A conditional offer of assistance is not the same as a universal new mandate. There is something encouraging in both approaches: each moves attention from a broad promise to the terms of a particular exchange. What information influenced the price or pay? What must a developer provide in return for faster access to public infrastructure? The difficult part comes next. Collected information must be useful enough to distinguish ordinary variation from individualized treatment. Infrastructure conditions need measurable delivery, not just persuasive plans. We should judge the initiatives by what becomes inspectable and enforceable—not declare victory because an inquiry was launched or a covenant published.
