We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Roa Powell
Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR); co-leads IPPR's AI programme
People are increasingly worried about AI, and for good reason. If governments can't show what AI is for and how it will improve lives, that concern could quickly turn into outright opposition. The task now is to make AI work for the public, not just for a handful of companies.
AI Verified
source
(2026)
1mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Verified
Quote attributed to Roa Powell, Senior Research Fellow at IPPR (2026). The ippr.org source_url returned HTTP 403 to automated fetching, but web search confirmed the press release/report exists at that exact URL ("Government risks 'techlash' unless it shows who benefits from AI, IPPR warns," released 2026-04-16) and corroborated both the quote verbatim and the author: "Roa Powell, Senior Research Fellow at IPPR, stated: 'People are increasingly worried about AI, and for good reason. If governments can't show what AI is for and how it will improve lives, that concern could quickly turn into outright opposition. The task now is to make AI work for the public, not just for a handful of companies.'" Year (2026) current and correct. Author attribution confirmed. Vote alignment: the quote (and the report's call for "redistribution of windfall gains") supports broad public sharing of AI's economic gains rather than concentration among a handful of companies, consistent with the "for" vote on "The economic gains from frontier AI should be shared with every person on Earth." Note: the IPPR report is UK-focused in context, but the quoted principle ("make AI work for the public, not just for a handful of companies") articulates the general anti-concentration/broad-sharing stance of the statement, so "for" is appropriate.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 4d ago
replying to Roa Powell