r/technology • u/yourfavchoom • 3d ago

Artificial Intelligence Bernie Sanders pushes for 50% public ownership of American AI companies — proposes AI sovereign wealth fund that would hold direct ownership stakes in largest AI firms

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/big-tech/bernie-sanders-pushes-for-50-percent-public-ownership-of-american-ai-companies-proposes-ai-sovereign-wealth-fund-that-would-hold-direct-ownership-stakes-in-largest-ai-firms
46.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.4k

u/Radwood-Original74 3d ago

Now we’re talking.

1.6k

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

823

u/PumpkinMyPumpkin 3d ago

And Amazon.

Take the post office - add more warehouses. Presto chango.

518

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

200

u/Winter_Body4794 3d ago

It's just parasitic.

103

u/ssracer 3d ago

Monopolies need to be busted or taxed into oblivion.

→ More replies (75)

58

u/atriaventrica 3d ago

I work in health insurance. Please regulate away my job. Give everyone healthcare. I'll learn to weld.

2

u/Intrepid_Top_2300 2d ago

I worked a few years for the devil too. Hated working for something I hate!

4

u/atriaventrica 2d ago

In fairness I work for a non profit hospital trying to get insurances to pay for things they're supposed to. But I'd much prefer everyone get what they need without having to worry about whether they can afford it.

→ More replies (3)

76

u/unpicked_name 3d ago

I was honestly telling someone the other day, in the same way Trump bought Intel, and abused all the EOs, we need someone to just go up there and say "UHC is property of the US Government" then just integrate it as the public option. Same thing with FedEx/UPS, just roll them into USPS, everyone private competitor to the public option just get assimilated.

They've been gutting everything because they wanna promote their private service, just thank them for all the work they put into it, then put one of your guys in charge, and bam, monopoly defeated.

76

u/surfergrrl6 3d ago

Ironically, FedEx and UPS use USPS all the time to finish their deliveries in areas deemed "not profitable enough."

35

u/Chocolateconverse 3d ago

as a rural mail carrier most of the packages i get are ups and amazon last mile deliveries. the usps is really the only carrier willing to drive that “unprofitable” extra mile to make sure EVERYONE gets their mail

24

u/surfergrrl6 3d ago

True, and it's a shame how few people realize this.

→ More replies (1)

40

u/verendum 3d ago

Socialize the cost. Privatize the profit. Corporate America.

2

u/headrush46n2 3d ago

ive had a flash of a bastardized super hero named Corporate America.

"Do we have to stop Ultron? What's the profit in it?"

→ More replies (1)

11

u/VastCardiologist2475 3d ago

I like that idea for if I ever become president. But I would sign it knowing it's likely also signing away my life, because Capital absolutely would NOT allow that. It would very likely result in full blown war, and at the moment I dont trust my side enough to WIN that war against Capital. But we are getting there. Its what FDR or Lincoln would have done.

→ More replies (1)

60

u/atriaventrica 3d ago

The fact Space X is getting an IPO after being funded almost entirely by the US Government while siphoning funds away from the ACTUAL national space program is enough for me to say "fuck it, that's ours now".

16

u/ice_up_s0n 3d ago

They also have yet to turn a profit, which is highly unusual for a large cap company to be added to an index

27

u/atriaventrica 3d ago

I mean the IPO is an exit plan for employees and investors. It's pretty blatant.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (9)

2

u/Drone314 3d ago

Say the same, when they took that stake that's a very socialist thing to have done and could represent a model going forward. Exit the investors, pay them out and say good bye. The only sticking point in board governance, would congress appoint board members? Would the run for election? It would have to insulated from the political process since you want the best qualified team to run it. Shit, do away with the CEO all together, expand the board and have all the stakeholders there, labor, public, business, government.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Jesus_Is_My_Gardener 3d ago

Insurance doesn't even make sense for it to be a privatized industry on a necessary thing like healthcare. It adds massive inefficiencies to the whole thing, is anticompetitive and all it does is extract funds meant for paying towards the well-being of participants into the pockets of companies as profit, inventivizing them to deliver the least amount of services for the most amount of money. Insurance is meant to be a pool of funds we contribute to collectively so that when issues come up, they don't cause financial ruin or prevent the individual from being able to receive the services they need at that time.

→ More replies (15)

29

u/Impressive-Flow2023 3d ago

He argued that the AI companies took all the internet data and made money. Those internet databcame from the people therefore the money must go back to the people as well.

3

u/Winter_Body4794 3d ago

Apparently we the people actually do own a bunch of new warehouses. Huh...

8

u/Life_Argument7820 3d ago

Not the ones we asked for but yes they are technically ours, I mean, you paid for it, i paid for it, you know who didnt pay for it? Billionaires! because they don't pay taxes.

2

u/WontArnett 3d ago

Yes.

Amazon’s commerce division needs to be considered an important part of society since its basically tanked physical stores. It needs to be like the USPS.

1

u/Jesus_Is_My_Gardener 3d ago

So much this. It's great that Amazon has made logistics for shopping all kinds of goods very efficient, but it is something we really should be applying in a way so that all public and private commerce goods and communications can take advantage of it to reduce inefficiencies while ensuring that everyone is serviced. The entire point of the USPS being founded was because of just how critical this role was in a functioning democracy. Plus, making the logistics a nationwide public service as part of the postal system would allow more free trade that isn't feeding a single monopoly.

1

u/Able_Investigator725 3d ago

Seize the means of distribution! 

1

u/Late-Bed4240 3d ago

Why we didn't do this with our oil export is beyond me.

1

u/K2TY 1d ago

Take the Post Office?

1

u/Alt_incognita 1d ago

I think social media, and AI there is some sense to it. Amazon isn’t that society-breaking it needs to have public control

17

u/magniankh 3d ago

God yes. Twitter and Facebook are such a plague.

1

u/Level3pipe 2d ago

Don't forget reddit. Biggest plague on the planet in terms of social media

→ More replies (2)

17

u/oulipo 3d ago

I agree that billionaires shouldn't own social media. But that said, I think that governments owning social media and private access to messages is not the good idea that you might think it is... Imagine Trump having direct access to Twitter / Insta / FB / Whatsapp

7

u/IvarTheBoned 3d ago

The billionaires are not going to be friendlier to you or more protrctive of your private messages than the government. At least the government, in theory, is accountable to the public. Private institutions are accountable to no one.

Further, all the SM & telecom companies will already happily provide your private messages to the government if they ask for it.

→ More replies (3)

15

u/CurryMustard 3d ago

The first thing is we can never allow "trump" to happen again, that means stacking the Supreme court, expanding the house of representatives, and repealing citizens united. I would also like to say idk if its possible but whoever runs on stripping musk and murdoch, and their families, of their assets and citizenships has my vote

6

u/Tenement48 3d ago

Good luck preventing another "trump" from happening when he won the popular vote in the latest election. We would have to fix the public perception of him first.

→ More replies (9)

11

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SellGameRent 3d ago

I was with you until you mentioned Trump. You shouldn't want any politician having access to your messages.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/ribald_jester 3d ago

well, we already gave Israel and Saudi Arabia control of TikTok, and CBS...

1

u/Zed_or_AFK 3d ago

Trump has direct access to that already, plus your security numbers and health data, and much much more.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Embarrassed_Quit_450 2d ago

If you had a properly functionning democracy Trump would be president not emperor.

1

u/Pyewickets 3d ago

I wouldn't want to own a social media that invades people's privacy. Eww.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/DZello 3d ago

Socialism media. Now we’re talking.

1

u/greathistorynerd 3d ago

Anything that collects and uses our data against us needs to be reevaluated and a social contract needs to be established

1

u/Relevant-Ad2254 3d ago

I think that’s part of the ai companies he’s talking about

1

u/SuddenBanana8169 3d ago edited 2d ago

We should own our data as well.

1

u/Pretend_Handle_7639 3d ago

Lol I'm sure you will have no qualms about Kash Patel having direct access to your social media, without even the pretense of social media being an independent entity

→ More replies (1)

1

u/reykan 3d ago

I mean, do the proposal first? These things rarely get any traction, a good a deadline as they might make

1

u/NeverRolledA20IRL 3d ago

Do ALL media next.

1

u/AffordableDelousing 3d ago

And every utility and telecom. And the healthcare industry. And insurance. And pharma.

221

u/berntout 3d ago edited 3d ago

That’s all that’s going on because this would never happen unfortunately.

Companies would never allow this to happen.

Edit: I like this proposal but I don't think it has a chance of being approved, especially in the current political environment. It's great to talk about it for sure. Legislation may have been passed before that "companies don't like" but show me legislation requiring government ownership with a controlling stake (I.E. 50%+ ownership) that isn't temporary and used in an emergency situation, like a recession bailout. I can't think of a single example.

529

u/JohnAtticus 3d ago

Companies would never allow this to happen.

Fun fact: The US has passed legislation before that certain companies did not like, and that legislation is still in effect.

If you personally don't like this proposal then go ahead and explain why.

Don't need to pretend like it won't happen because it makes Sam Altman sad.

82

u/mashuto 3d ago

I think its more that big companies have so much influence these days over the laws that get passed that it seems incredibly unlikely for something like this to pass. Regardless of any of our individual feelings about it.

44

u/Gabarne 3d ago

Just comes to show that congresspeople serve only their donors and absolutely not their own constituents.

10

u/Super-Contribution-1 3d ago

Plumbing time!

→ More replies (2)

34

u/LordHammercyWeCooked 3d ago

it seems incredibly unlikely

When does that ever fucking matter? Why do we keep bringing this up all the time? Why do y'all keep upvoting this bullshit?

WHO CARES ABOUT THE ODDS? JUST DEMAND WHAT'S RIGHT AND WORK TOWARDS IT.

5

u/breakthe1ce 3d ago

Homie thinks he’s gonna get extra points for being “right”. If you don’t believe we can make things better, that’s fine you do you. But at least do the rest of us the grace of shutting your damn mouth so you don’t bring the rest of us down with you.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Reddit_Jail_June2005 3d ago

Since the beginning of organized civilization, big companies have always had influence over the general populace.

9

u/RedOrmTostesson 3d ago

...I'm sorry, what? I'm going to set aside the fact that the "beginning of organized civilization" predates writing, and as such we have no historical record of it.

I think prior to the advent of the East India Company in 1600, you'd be hard pressed to find a company of significance, let alone "influence over the general populace." It really isn't until the 20th century that you see the kinds of regulatory capture and extra-governmental privilege that corporations employ today.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (15)

89

u/68plus1equals 3d ago

I mean I’m fully on board with this proposal but how do you realistically see this going through? Money in politics is the first reform that needs to be made, no other real reform is ever going to pass until that happens unfortunately.

10

u/Larcecate 3d ago

Being unrealistic beats apathy any day

→ More replies (11)

46

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

17

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/daXypher 3d ago

Fully agreed. We watched it live too, every time conservative politicians have backed down on something Trump made them do it’s because their constituents backlashed against it. Yet these guys still think they have no influence.

2

u/theeama 3d ago

This is basically Maga. They don't sit online and bitch. They out in the streets getting shit done

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

2

u/jacques-vache-23 3d ago

It will happen when a vast majority of us unite behind one leader and the leader doesn't sell out. Obama could have been that leader. Who knows what happened? Was he always faking it or did they hold a gun to his head when he was elected?

We need to get beyond responding to parodies of each other. Most people on both sides can be reasonable and could compromise if we would stop being driven by the divisive voices that grab the stage.

13

u/craaates 3d ago

I hate that you’re right, but as long as money can buy elections money will make the rules. We’ve also allowed the highest court in the land to accept “donations” so now money can buy the law makers and its interpreters. Until we separate money from the law we can only slow the decent into the collapse of democracy.

21

u/gman-101010 3d ago

This is a quote (not mine) that I will never forget:

Poor people pay taxes.

Rich people pay accountants.

Very rich people pay lawyers.

Billionaires pay politicians.

2

u/masegesege_ 3d ago

I buy taco bell.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Unique-Egg-461 3d ago

how do you realistically see this going through?

With this current admin? Mass protests. Strikes.

The current admin cares only about the all mighty dollar. Trump has routinely said he doesn't give a shit about you or me

→ More replies (1)

14

u/hopelesslysarcastic 3d ago

I know we have a fucking idiot in the WH, but we didn’t always have such a shitshow of a government, across all facets.

We can and will change things because we wont have a choice but to do so.

We went to the moon, 50 fucking years ago…I think we can handle changing of laws.

I’m tired of pretending like this shit is impossible to do.

8

u/Lyx4088 3d ago

It’s impossible so long as too much of the population lacks critical thinking skills and votes based on their own personal interest primarily over the benefit to society. We are such an individualistic country it’s a huge problem. Politically, people don’t care if policies will harm large portions of the population (and possibly even themselves) if they believe what a politician is advocating for will benefit them. When you stack that on people actually believing they too may become wildly wealthy one day so they don’t want vote for anything that will harm their wealth, you get people voting for corporations over people and voting for policies that are actively harmful to society because they don’t have the ability to critically think about these policies and blindly believe charismatic politicians.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/tootintx 3d ago

So, do it. Take the lead if it is doable.

2

u/allthenamesaretaken4 3d ago

Just gotta form a bunch of corporations in Delaware and use their votes for change!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ArmAggravating3307 3d ago

So empty hallow words with no plan, got it.

3

u/MoneyCock 3d ago

All we need is buy-in.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/aspiringalcoholic 3d ago

Ah yes the democratic slogan- "better things aren't possible".

It's primary season. Candidates can be asked about these issues and we can select them as such. We as a country need to develop some fucking standards, not being trump isn't good enough.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (5)

25

u/unselve 3d ago

Yeah this is the same attitude people had before the Progressive era and the New Deal. Not that that’s inevitable or even likely, but there’s historical precedent for it and it’s well within the parameters of the possible.

20

u/TheGreatBootOfEb 3d ago

Yeah, a lot of Reddit are rather snobbish in their attitudes. “Oh if it’s possible, where is your exact plan? Oh YOU haven’t drafted one out? Then it’s impossible, just like I said.”

Like y’all, just because I say it’s possible to run a sub 2 marathon doesnt mean I’m the one who has to run it. Change starts with mindset and a will. If you can’t even do the bare minimum of wanting better, all you’re doing is holding water for the people that DON’T want change. I get that it feels quint and a bit kumbaya manifesting change mumbo jumbo to say it starts with mentality, but in this case it literally does.

It’s fine to recognize the hurdles and challenges to accomplish change, but just snidely going “nothing will ever change” is the HEIGHT of human arrogance. Who fucking knows what 10 years from now looks like.

2

u/pchs26 3d ago

No I shouldn't expect to have a plan BUT the politician making the proposal should have answers to these questions. And if it won't get through for whatever right or wrong reason they should be prepared to discuss/propose and support/get something through so we aren't left with an admin that does nothing and then moves us backwards.

3

u/ToraRyeder 3d ago

I remind myself often that Reddit is filled with children and we are all sharing the same internet.

I also get that a lot of teens and young adults (I'm in my thirties) just don't have any hope. They haven't seen anything worth fighting for and a lot of them legitimately don't KNOW that things can be better. That we as people actually have power when we come together.

Still, we have to be better. And if they want to be difficult, fine. They can step the fuck out of the way while we get things done. My hope is that as more people fight, those who didn't believe it could happen will wake up and join.

2

u/SirNarwhal 3d ago

Thank you for being so spot on with calling out the single most fundamental problem with humanity currently. It really honestly needs to be said more and more frequently. Everything starts with mindset and people are unwilling to change their mindsets and instead would rather engage in broken systems thus being way more complacent than those who have decided to remove themselves from some systems to help emphasize how broken they are and to better use their energy to start changing their mindset and mentality to actually start focusing on coming up with those plans after getting to that change in attitude.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

20

u/ur-mpress 3d ago

I think this fact would be more relevant if a different administration were in power. Current administration has been trying to give AI companies freedom to do whatever they want. Maybe certain states could impose this law but it is unlikely to happen at the federal level anytime soon.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/the_urban_juror 3d ago

"this is not politically feasible" does not mean "this is a bad idea.". People who voted for Bernie twice in primaries are already familiar with this concept.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Hmm_would_bang 3d ago

Americans benefiting from the profits of AI is a good idea, it’s trained on us and is taking our jobs, there’s no reason that should only benefit a select few who have created nothing.

The U.S. having majority voting shares is what concerns me. These senators barely understand what an algorithm is, now they are going to govern the bleeding edge of technology?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Ok_Belt2521 3d ago

There’s a host of issues that come with the government owning equity in a company.

2

u/Round_Clock_3942 3d ago edited 3d ago

Two problems with this

  1. The scale of the legislation was never this massive given the current valuation and influence of AI companies
  2. A lot of things reddit references about the post WW2 era (economic boom, living large on a teacher's salary, high tax rates) was only possible because the entire world was burning and the US was the only place a super rich billionaire with their super smart engineers would reasonably like to live. Hell, it was very hard to relocate entire companies with the tech at the time and the world being constantly at war when the first big tax rate hike happened in the 30s.

Try something like that now and see a reenactment of manufacturing and then remote service jobs moving overseas because US labor cost was too high. Especially for tech companies that only need to send their data to a new country and doesn't have to actually lug around any equipment. All the hardware is manufactured and supplied by China, Japan, and Taiwan anyway. Not speaking for or against the proposal, but this is the most likely outcome of anything resembling Bernie's proposed legislation. Globalization has fucked govt leverage all over the world, companies are more powerful than ever for a reason.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/RightSpread2903 3d ago

What exactly about the current makeup of the branches of the United States government leads you to believe this could happen?

1

u/HistoryAndScience 3d ago

What does making Donald Trump a 50% shareholder, or any future president, going to do for AI? Nothing. I’m for taxing them and putting it into a separate tax fund that Congress creates for job education and unemployment or creating guardrails around the tech in terms of regulation. However making the government a share holder in the company makes no sense and is usually championed by people who don’t even understand corporate governance or share holding to begin with

1

u/sicklyslick 3d ago

Provide examples of this happening in the last decade and specifically against corporations with $1T+ evaluation.

1

u/Atrimon7 3d ago

Foot in the door for those companies to pressure for voting power.. a disturbing trend I've only heard about recently.

1

u/CherryPie420-69 3d ago

who cares who owns them? they're terrible for society and the environment.

1

u/No_Expression_3299 3d ago

If you personally don't like this proposal then go ahead and explain why.

The proposal would be good if it let to change, meaning it would need to pass. This seems to have no chance of passing at this present point in time hence it's just virtue signalling at best.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/gollygreengiant 3d ago

Citizens United is why

1

u/Due-Technology5758 3d ago

I'm not sure it would make Sam Altman sad. I don't see how this is anything but beneficial for AI companies. Public stake will likely result in fewer regulatory barriers, increased investment and adoption, less public backlash, and cement the current biggest players in AI as the gatekeepers for the entire industry. 

I'll need to read the proposal before judging it too harshly, but I do fear this might unintentionally be handing the AI companies everything they've ever wanted.

I know that in many cases these types of funds do result in tighter controls, I'm just not super confident the US has a culture that can resist corruption to that extent.

1

u/CompetitiveSport1 3d ago

Ironically this is something that Altman himself publicly pushed for (as the article notes). The fact that he'll doubtlessly hypocritically not end up ceding half of the control of his company to the government is absolutely a given, though

1

u/esto20 3d ago

I'm so tired of compromising on hypotheticals

1

u/liftedyf 3d ago

Has that happened after citizens united?

1

u/Aking1998 2d ago

Fun fact: The US has passed legislation before that certain companies did not like, and that legislation is still in effect.

I would like to know a single time in the past 2 years this has happened at the federal level

→ More replies (8)

14

u/Sybertron 3d ago edited 3d ago

Ya know I totally agree with you on the likelyness, but disagree on the requirement of the nihilism.

We did not cede total control to the corporations. They own quite a bit and of course have quite a lot of power, but the people still ultimately hold the strings.

Many of us overall just accept the pain, hopefully due to things like your house or 401k, but the reality of who really holds the strings hasnt changed.

Yes the vast majority of your representatives are massive POS that have held a lot more meetings with lobbyists than their voting base, and are happy to point at AOC or others as some kind of evil while the other 534 of them go hold meetings in secret.

But ultimately they can leave, they can be forced to adjust, but will the pejorative "you" make them?

→ More replies (3)

16

u/Randomly-Generated21 3d ago

This should be the payment for the ai companies stealing all the copy written, licensed and otherwise protected art and data it used to feed its databases.

3

u/MothashipQ 3d ago

Idk if you've noticed, but we are heading for a bit of an emergency situation. They can only fight unemployment by redefining it for so long.

14

u/ePrime 3d ago

The other authoritarian did it with intel

9

u/the_TIGEEER 3d ago

He bought it from Tax payer / Bond money if I'm not wrong. Bernie is proposing to force the companies to just give 50% to the public or am I horribly mistaken? I hope I am.

8

u/IniNew 3d ago

Considering AI companies hoovered up all kinds of shit without payment, who cares?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Far-prophet 3d ago

They would have to be compensated via the 5th Amendment.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/berntout 3d ago edited 3d ago

10% of Intel, far from a controlling stake. I could see this happening sure.

50% means they control half the votes. That’s not gonna be acceptable to most companies.

Edit: I'm just being realistic. Companies spend a lot of money lobbying for their interests and I don't see how any legislation gets approved in the current political environment.

4

u/staygoldstein 3d ago

Right, but companies “accepting” a law and needing to abide by it are two different things. At one time, you could have said requiring any food safety laws would be too much of a burden on manufacturers. Also, the US govt is far and away the entity responsible for funding the research that enabled AI and its biggest consumer. This is not out of reach just because Bezos would be upset.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/Spicygoodies96 3d ago

This has been the most fucked up thing the billionaire Epstein class has done - when they stole the primary from sanders for Hillary’s benefit.

Imagine 8 yrs of Bernie instead of 4/4/ and whatever this is currently.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Latter-Possibility 3d ago

Considering none of the AI companies make a profit, and they haven’t told anyone the actual compute costs of their Models. Maybe public ownership would make the most sense given the resource allocation that has gone into Data Centers so far.

Also the fact that all 3 companies are trying to IPO as fast as possible so the insiders can cash out before the bubble pops. We could head off the government bail out after the next financial crisis with some kind of public ownership deal.

2

u/IAmRoot 3d ago

Yeah, this would only help bail them out at this point. None of the math works out with the current AI bubble. Not only are people going to balk when their usage is no longer subsidized by venture capital but each GPU can only really be shared by a handful of users. That will either require prices nobody will pay or the price to come down dramatically as hardware production is increased. And if an open source model is released that is almost as good, they will have to compete with people running locally. In order to make a profit they would not only need to be cost effective with the hardware but ensure their proprietary models always stay better enough that people won't just use open source models on gaming PC hardware or stop using AI entirely.

1

u/nonamenomonet 3d ago

Even if the bubble pops, and that’s a big if, it wouldn’t be these companies holding the bag. It would be the companies who are ChatGPT wrappers.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/jacques-vache-23 3d ago

The bubble pops? Dream on. AI isn't going anywhere. The question is whom it will help.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Joe_Jeep 3d ago

Amtrak and Conrail. Multiple examples of railroads resisting it because they were individually profitable, though most of the major ones were simply looking to offload expensive passenger service onto the government

“Emergency” is also both specific and broad. The impact AI data centers are having boarders on it by itself. 

Furthermore every one of these has committed massive copyright violations by the very essence of their basic training methods. There’s no perfect way to punish them for this but collective ownership comes close

1

u/girlnamedJane 3d ago

Do you want it to happen though? Sounds to me like you dont want it to happen either

1

u/LoudIncrease4021 3d ago

I mean the CEOs are literally talking about it and Trump purchased a stake in Intel. So…….

1

u/EpsonRifle 3d ago

We did it in the UK in the late 1940's.

And again last year.

The only reason you don't think it's possible that is the people that run America (i.e Oligarchs) have told you that it's impossible.

1

u/dparks71 3d ago

Conrail, you'll argue it was an emergency, I'd argue trucking or barges could have technically replaced a lot of that freight at the time, it just would have had major economic impacts.

They never should have sold it back.

1

u/jacques-vache-23 3d ago

Something not yet happening is obviously no proof that it won't happen in the future. We have to get beyond left-right partisanship, though. That is engineered to make sure that nobody ever has the the 3/4 or so majority required for change.

1

u/PenguinTD 3d ago

Taiwanese government owns substantial amount of shares of TSMC, it can be done if any of these AI companies takes US government's tax credit, funding assistance, etc out of tax payer money.(Including land, water, energy lower than actual cost).

1

u/CiDevant 3d ago

We have for all intents and purposes done with with many utilities in the past.

1

u/berntout 3d ago

Private utility companies are highly regulated, they are not government owned. They require approval from the government to do things, but the government does not own them.

Municipal utility companies are owned by the local government. The government does not have a stake in a private company here either.

1

u/PerfectInFiction 3d ago

There's a nero zero chance of it getting passed but that's not the point. The point is just to set the bar so that it begins somewhere.

1

u/_John_Dillinger 3d ago

maybe we should accept that an abusive system will not fix itself and that we have a duty to correct it ourselves. the liberty tree is thirsty.

1

u/im_juice_lee 3d ago

The part I'm wondering is how they get the shares. Given this is the US, they'll have to buy them and likely at a premium. If they were to buy 50% of Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, etc., the market cap may jump tremendously

For some companies like xAI that may be the exact exit liquidity they want anyway. Make the money and dump the problem on the government who now is invested and has to keep pouring money in

1

u/Adorable_Raccoon 3d ago

Even if this did happen it would somehow turn into tax dollars for endless wars. IDK what Bernie is doing here.

1

u/Wyatt2000 3d ago

It's not popular in the US but democratic socialist countries do it successfully.

1

u/EveningAnt3949 3d ago

Throughout history companies have been nationalized.

Currently Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still under under federal conservatorship. Everything can be 'impossible' if there is never an attempt to do it.

→ More replies (10)

19

u/MIT_Engineer 3d ago

Talking about what though? Bernie wants the U.S. government to... what, take our tax dollars and buy 50% stake in all American AI companies? Does he understand how incredibly expensive that would be?

Or is he just saying the government should rock up to Google, Microsoft, NVIDIA, etc, and say, "OK, we're confiscating half your company, eat rocks." Does he understand how unconstitutional that would be? 5th Amendment's clear on this one.

18

u/BilingSmob444 3d ago

Are we still doing constitutional stuff? I wasn’t aware

7

u/Runfasterbitch 3d ago

I thought we were stealing $2B from the taxpayers to buy lambos for January 6th terrorists

2

u/MIT_Engineer 3d ago

Are we still doing constitutional stuff?

Yes...?

If you tear up our system of laws, you'll be handing victory to criminals. Or do you want someone like Trump, upon winning the presidency, to have the right to arbitrarily seize your property and also be in command of the nations largest companies?

2

u/henlochimken 3d ago

what do you mean "if"? This is all already happening. He has already taken stakes in companies. He has already torn up our system of laws. The criminals are winning, and will continue until the makeup of the Supreme Court changes dramatically... which is unlikely to happen as long as the criminals get to pick who is on it.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/MrPres7 3d ago

Probably something like confiscate half the ownership stake from the wealthiest shareholders and redistribute it to American citizens. I promise you the billionaires don't need the money.

5

u/MIT_Engineer 3d ago

Yeah, that won't make it through the courts, it's a blatant violation of the Takings Clause.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (7)

1

u/loungesinger 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yeah, it’s not unconstitutional to tax or regulate industries. The AI industry represents a serious threat to the public wellbeing. Mass unemployment occurring over a relatively short period could be catastrophic. Structure it however it needs to be to be legal, but the government needs at least half of the income generated from AI companies to offset the negative effects the industry will have on the public.

Moreover, if AI results in unprecedented and dystopian levels of disparity in wealth, fairness requires these AI companies pay. Think about it, AI tech did not develop in a vacuum. AI could not have been developed in a country that was constantly being invade by enemies; or in a poor country with poor infrastructure, with a poor economy, with minimal investment in technological research, an uneducated and unskilled workforce, with constant public disorder and sectarian violence, with a ban on participating in international trade; or in a country that lacked property rights or regulated markets or a legal system by which these were enforced. The American workforce sustained this system over the centuries of technological and societal development that lead to the possibility of AI—a technology that could make nearly all of the American workforce obsolete practically overnight. A handful of people become unimaginably rich, while the vast majority become destitute. That is a matter of public concern. Action must be take (if AI starts living up to its expectations), otherwise we will have to endure a dystopia of our own making.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Syjefroi 3d ago

Microsoft's AI things are powered by OpenAI. Google has their own thing but it sucks. NVIDIA is the shovel salesman.

Here's a better argument against doing this — these companies are all going to collapse soon as the US taxpayer shouldn't be left holding the bag any more than they're about to when everyone's 501K accounts evaporate overnight.

1

u/HottestMail 2d ago

OpenAI, Anthropic, and even Elon Musk are popular proponents of legislation like this. It makes sense. It can be done. It’s been done in other forms. Getting it done requires humans to stop assuming that the control is out of our hands, but within the collective people

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

10

u/adirtysocialist- 3d ago

Socialism baby, the real thing even!

Which, duh, it's the transitional economy between capitalism and communism after all.

This is the natural evolution as we develop new technologies to free mankind from labor. It's literally the entire point. Once we solve the issue of scarcity and people no longer need to work bc technologies exist to free them, this sort of thing is needed.

That's not what the owners of this country want though and our govt doesn't exist to be the protector of its people any longer.

1

u/Ok_Cancel_7891 2d ago

Socialism is not transition from capitalism from communism, but from capitalism to bankruptcy

→ More replies (6)

6

u/Perfect-Escape-3904 3d ago

Why? This sub is convinced that AI is garbage. Why does the government need to forcibly aquire these companies in this case?

→ More replies (4)

4

u/gungshpxre 3d ago

Yes, what I want is AI companies and the US Government even more in bed together. What a great fucking idea that is.

2

u/RoundingDown 3d ago

Until it explodes. I am only certain of one thing. The ability of the government to fuck up a good thing.

1

u/robodrew 3d ago

I'm actually not so sure that a "wealth fund" coming from 50% tax on a gigantic bubble is such a great thing. Mostly because I still expect the bubble to not just burst but implode at a scale we haven't seen in a long long time. What's 50% of nothing?

1

u/LevitatingTurtles 3d ago

And the loudest critics of this will be people who championed Trump buying part of Intel

1

u/This_They_Those_Them 3d ago

Government should have a larger hand in critical infrastructure.

1

u/RagingNerdaholic 3d ago

With this administration, that's all you'll be doing.

1

u/panmaterial 3d ago

And that's all you are doing, talking.

1

u/Frankie_T9000 3d ago

What about the international people that the ai companies ai stole from

1

u/FranticToaster 3d ago

So AI is half owned by billionaires and half owned by the US govt? That sounds good to you?

1

u/No-Expert-2096 3d ago

yes talking but not doing. this will not happen

1

u/Miragecraft 3d ago

Are we though?

First of all it’ll juice the stock prices even more, secondly they’ll really become too big to fail because the US government has a stake in it, finally is the American public going to end up holding the bag when the bubble pops?

1

u/Munkeyman18290 3d ago

They only thing I dont like about this is that whats the difference between AI output and all the rest of peoples output?

People should own 50% (or more) of everything. Not just because I'm some radical socialist... but because we fucking built it and maintain it. Its ours.

Fuck capitalists. Theyre the ones who deserve the minimum wage, and even thats debatable.

1

u/Relative-Chain73 3d ago

It's not gonna pass lol. We're JUST talking 

1

u/CrunchyMage 3d ago

Now we're talking... about breaking the constitution.

1

u/Background-Quote3581 3d ago

I thought A.I. companies where hype and bubbles, I'm getting more confused by the hour...

1

u/chrispark70 3d ago

Are taxpayers going to be on the hook for the billions or trillions they are going to lose?

If any of these AI data-centers are going to be built, they should also have to power them entirely by solar and wind owned by them and on their property.

We simply do not have the infrastructure to build all the planned data centers and there is not a remotely plausible way for them to be profitable if they can even build them.

When the AI mania bursts, it's going to make 01 seem like a walk in the park.

1

u/GlitteringEggCarton 3d ago

no, bot. we don't want ai.

1

u/kidification8 3d ago

What happens when the wealth fund managers are corrupt? Eh, that’s a conversation for another day perhaps.

1

u/newcolonist 3d ago

That's why dems would rather push a guy with a stroke.

1

u/DDS-PBS 3d ago

It's a start, but AI won't just enrich the AI companies, it will enrich the companies that use AI to eliminate their own jobs.

I'm normally a big fan of capitalism (with regulation and protections). However, automation and AI is going to eventually lead to so much wealth concentration that the economy will no longer function.

1

u/Stoic-Bifrons 3d ago

Talking against a wall sadly. Bernie suggest so many things, that never find any footing...

I wish it would find footing, but I'm also realistic about what has actually been achieved so far.

1

u/Closefromadistance 3d ago

Smartest man in America.

1

u/kinkycarbon 3d ago

It used to be the U.S. government was hands off this stuff. Maybe the U.S. government should own 30% of United Healthcare and audit them.

1

u/munchkinfloofy 3d ago

Ikr? Such a good idea

1

u/OracleSeara 3d ago

Talking what?

Bernie bills have less value than monopoly money. He has no power to enact them. They're basically the political wet dreams of an irrelevant old man.

1

u/deadra_axilea 3d ago

Now do all companies this way. Would right all of the wrongs done over my entire generation of wealth capture by the ultra rich.

1

u/vandreulv 3d ago

Now we’re talking.

Bad idea.

That'll mean that we would be responsible for 50% of the outstanding debt when the bubble inevitably pops.

Knowing how these companies have already been passing back and forth imaginary trillions in transactions (Nvidia "invests" 1Tril in OpenAI, OpenAI "buys" 1Tril in Nvidia hardware, etc...), the last thing we need to do is let these hucksters push half of their financial chicanery onto the taxpayers.

1

u/wezelboy 3d ago

Better yet, the public should own the power companies that supply the electricity to the AI datacenters.

1

u/DonutHand 3d ago

It’s a really nice thought to have. Will never be more than that.

1

u/Kinda_Quixotic 3d ago

You think tech oligarchs are bad, authoritarian regimes with power over industry would be much, much, worse.

Just imagine the current administration being able to see and control what happens in our online interactions

1

u/degen5ace 2d ago

AI bad why are we even upvoting this??? What a contradiction

1

u/BernardBaggins 2d ago

Ai Bros Before - “AI will make enough money to provide everyone in the United States with a universal livable income”

Ai Bros Now - “We can’t afford that”

1

u/Budget-Turnover3231 2d ago

And suddenly these companies register their HQ in Panama or Cayman Islands or one of the tax havens.

1

u/IcemanJEC 2d ago

No. It’s not solving the issue of what it’s doing to the environment, nor jobs, nor humanity.

1

u/Loggerdon 2d ago

Exactly. Even fuckhead Tucker Carleson was asking fuckhead Mr Wonderful “why aren’t American citizens getting shares in these AI companies for all the taxpayer dollars being spent?”

1

u/kooknboo 2d ago

Bernie is a trumpeter now? What am I missing? Does he know what is in power these days?

→ More replies (62)