On October 19, the world’s richest man, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and CTO and executive chairman of X Elon Musk, who supported former President Donald Trump, announced cash incentives to voters in swing states. Specifically, he extended $100 to voters who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Musk also offered $1 million each day leading up to the election through a raffle to a registered voter who signs the petition in one of seven swing states.

The move has sparked much debate about legality of such incentives, including a tweet from Dallas Mavericks co-owner, television personality and ultra-wealthy entrepreneur Mark Cuban, who questioned whether the scheme violated Pennsylvania’s voting or gaming laws.

Cuban, a one-time supporter of Trump’s initial presidential aspirations who now backs Vice President Kamala Harris, has differed with Musk not just on policy but on a variety of other issues, including social media and artificial intelligence. Musk was a signatory on March 2023 open letter urging developers to halt the preparation of AI systems stronger than ChatGPT-4 for six months, citing “profound risks to society and humanity”. Cuban, on the other hand, believes it is essential to limit government regulation of artificial intelligence so that the United States can maintain a leadership position in the technology to maintain its economic and military standing in the world.

We interviewed Cuban via email to get his thoughts on some of these issues, including the tech sector’s influence on politics and government.

The resulting interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Sara Goudarzi: You’ve been campaigning for Kamala Harris and against Donald Trump lately. Why?

Mark Cuban: I think Kamala Harris will be a much better president for our country.

Goudars: Over the past few years, a few tech companies—such as Google, Apple, Meta, Oracle, X, OpenAI—have amassed enormous power and influence over, among other things, the flow of information and communication. Their decisions about what is seen can impact everything from public health to politics to elections. AI appears to further concentrate power in the hands of a relatively few tech companies and their leaders. Do you see this concentration of power as a problem? If so, what can be done, in a democratic system, to help solve this problem?

Cuban: There are two questions: the first is about algorithms, especially on social networks. I think it’s a problem. It creates our own personal echo chamber where the algorithm continuously sends more of what you’ve already consumed in an effort to make you consume even more. Since most are unique to the user, we all have our own personal wormhole. I’m not sure there’s much you can do (about it) because creating an algorithm deserves freedom of speech like writing a book.

As for AI, it’s too early to tell. This is like the first days of mainframeswhere each producer required significant and expensive resources. Over time, it became cheaper and cheaper to build more and more powerful computers and software, which made them common to build or buy.

The same can be said about the various forms of AI. Right now it’s really expensive and resource intensive. Dominance in artificial intelligence is imperative for the United States to maintain its economic and military standing in the world, so it is the domain of our government and largest companies.

Over time, I think the price-performance curve for the equipment needed to run today’s most advanced AI options will follow that of the technology we’ve seen over the last 50-plus years. As it (the price) goes down, it will be more affordable for all but the most advanced designs used by the military and new applications. For the rest of us, there will be tens of millions of models that we will create and use as consumers and businesses.

Goudars: What do you think happens when someone who owns a social media platform like Elon Musk not only removes the railings that combat disinformation and disinformation and limits hate speech, but also decides to publicly endorse a political candidate ? Is this a problem, or is Musk simply doing what any media owner might do?

Cuban: Owning a social media platform, certainly for Musk, Zuck (Mark Zuckerberg) or whoever, is a power trip – no doubt about it. But it’s not all that different from what Rupert Murdoch has up his sleeve.

Everyone wants to be Charles Foster Kaneand eventually everyone will want the sled.

Goudars: You questioned the legality of Musk’s latest scheme to offer cash incentives to voters. The move is worrisome at best. Should there be clear laws and better checks and balances to curb such actions?

Cuban: That depends on the people of each state. I’m not a fan of what he does. But I also think it will bounce back. It seems desperate and diminishes the value people place on their votes.

Goudars: In 2022, Musk tweeted (now X): “…my historical party affiliation has been independent with an actual democrat voting history until this year.” Similarly, other members of Silicon Valley, such as former PayPal COO David Sacks, who previously supported Hillary Clinton, are now supporting Donald Trump. Silicon Valley has historically been more liberal. Why do you think these people are now rallying around the former president?

Cuban: When there were questions about Biden’s ability, it made perfect sense for them to turn to Trump, especially since many believe he could sway him. Now with Kamala, I think they regret it, but they have identified so publicly with Trump that they feel they have no choice but to stick with him. I guess they feel like “it’s only four years at worst” and at best they can sway him to do what they want.

Goudars: Other social media owners who aren’t as vocal about their political beliefs, like Mark Zuckerberg, can exert their influence in other ways, such as suppressing content and controlling how many eyeballs a post gets. Social media platforms have positive impacts, but they have had a clear negative impact on everything from politics and democracy to mental health. Do you think the United States government needs to step up its regulation of social media platforms? If so, how?

Cuban: We must first understand how. I think the best first step is, if a platform has users 16 and under, they should publish all their source code for algos and provide an HTML page with a link to all videos or images shown to the child, available to parents for see anytime. Nothing tells you more about a child than their social feeds on TikTok, insta and YouTube.

Goudars: To take it a step further: since a handful of individuals and companies control so much of the technology that is relevant to people’s daily lives, commerce, communication and the military, what happens when they decide to defy governments? Musk, for example, resisted when the Brazilian government asked him to reduce problematic content on X. He eventually relented after a judge ordered the platform blocked in the country. What happens when it won’t budge (quite a few countries rely on Starlink satellites, for example)? Are we then looking at a society where billionaires – with no real government or military experience – will end up with more power than governments? Why is this problematic?

Cuban: I don’t think it’s much different from when three TV networks and one or two newspapers and a few radio stations all controlled the media. Rupert Murdoch is as powerful, if not more, than any of them.

As for technology: the military must be equal in technology. I realize that Elon has exaggerated influence because of SpaceX and to a lesser extent Starlink, but there are competitors. We must support them. Technology is changing fast enough that by the time the feds figure out the first answer, the world will be different. We need to make sure the government has a president who understands technology well enough to emphasize winning AI, the way Kennedy wanted to go to the moon.

Goudars: You’ve been vocal about limiting government regulation of AI in favor of innovation to ensure the United States stays ahead of China in the AI ​​race. Are you worried about the role of AI in spreading disinformation – election-related or otherwise – and what solutions, if any, do you think could be effective in combating deepfakes and AI disinformation? Do you see any role for government there?

Cuban: I am Name, image, likeness the rules in force. There are copyright and trademark rules. We need to adapt them to the digital age, as we did with digital copyright law.

You can’t train an AI model very well using only data that another model creates or public domain material. It must use a broad base of information to be trained. Almost all of this is copyrighted material. If we enforce those laws, I think the basic models will pay IP owners just like movie and TV studios pay Netflix.

Goudars: Are you afraid that you will suffer negative consequences for your opposition to Donald Trump if he wins the presidential election?

Cuban: I don’t know.

Goudars: Will the Dallas Mavericks agree to visit the White House after they win the 2025 NBA championship, regardless of who wins the presidential election in November?

Cuban: That will depend on the players. But I would guess so. Let’s hope we have to decide.