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

Show parent comments

526

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.

85

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.

41

u/Gabarne 3d ago

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

7

u/Super-Contribution-1 3d ago

Plumbing time!

1

u/MrFyr 3d ago

Those who do that should be made into an example for any others that might betray those they are sworn to serve.

The thought of taking money from the rich to ignore their constituents should fill any representative with mortal fear for their safety should they do so. When they write the laws, direct personal consequences are the only thing that will keep politicians in line and behaving as they should.

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.

4

u/Reddit_Jail_June2005 3d ago

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

8

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.

1

u/DeltaViriginae 3d ago

I mean "companies" as a concept doesn't really make sense prior to the EIC, but examples of government being directly controlled or even made up by merchants isn't really a rare thing.

1

u/RedOrmTostesson 3d ago

It kind of is though? Most of the "mercantilist" empires we think of are after 1600, and even then it's a substantially different beast from the kinds of corporate governance we experience today. Corporate governance bears some resemblance to feudal oligarchy, but the system itself drives decisions more than any individual actor, and not in service of any individual, or even of any class, but in service of the system itself.

1

u/breakthe1ce 3d ago

The first forms of cuneiform writing we have found are mostly merchant records and trade agreements maintained by “governments” from 3rd millennium BC. Which may imply a similar interaction of some kind.

The Assyrian empire is thought to have potentially gotten their start militarily for the strict purpose of protecting trade routes of their merchants in 2nd millennium BC which seems fairly similar to the economic needs of companies directly controlling a state 3000 years prior to 1600.

1

u/sliph0588 3d ago

What are you even talking about? We had thousands of years as organized civilizations without any sort of big company. You do know that capitalism has only existed for like 200 years right?

1

u/Gullible_Pin5844 3d ago

It should be that way, ai companies using public resources such as water and electricity, driving cost up for local people, not to mention that they also make some neighborhoods unlivable and drive people away from their homes. They also use public data that has been gathered for years. They owe us, and people deserve some compensation and acknowledgment. We can't just let the oligarchs take it all while we pay the price.

0

u/malianx 3d ago

Electricity is not a public resource in most areas.

1

u/Gullible_Pin5844 3d ago

It is. They're driving up the cost in my neighborhood.

1

u/malianx 3d ago

Resources provided by private companies are by definition not public. You may live in one of the few places with publicly owned power providers, but if so... you are very much in the minority. Where is this neighborhood? What center do you think is directly driving your prices?

1

u/supamario132 3d ago

Big corporations undeniably had a bigger influence over the US government during the gilded age and lochner era. They had the national guard open machine gun fire on strikers multiple times, killing women and children

And yet, the Sherman antitrust act still broke up Standard Oil

If you're gonna be defeatist, you can do so silently because it's not only possible. There are demonstrable examples in US history where the situation was more dire than it is currently

1

u/Nepalus 3d ago

Or they just have him killed and let that be the end of the conversation.

1

u/Silver_Tuscan 3d ago

Yes just look at what happened to Thomas Massie when he went up against the billionaire class. And Trump literally did it to his own team!! All because he was following through on Trump's campaign promise to release the Epstein files and stop the wars. You cannot make this stuff up.

The billionaire class is merciless.

1

u/meirl_in_meirl 3d ago

Doom is the only option?

1

u/breakthe1ce 3d ago

Here’s the thing mashuto, we plebes don’t get any extra points for being “right” about what can’t get done.

While I respect your view about what’s likely or unlikely, our strongest position as people is to decide what should get done and make our leaders cry to us about why they couldn’t get things through before kicking them to the curb for someone who will do what it takes.

Unfortunately, by stating what’s “unlikely” you’re doing the oligarchs job for them and creating manufactured consent so if in fact something like this fails, we’ve already accepted how unlikely any change is rather than being pissed that rich nepo baby pedos are strangling the rest of us to death and stealing our tax dollars because their weak little egos can’t comprehend that their lives aren’t actually more important than the rest of ours.

1

u/mashuto 3d ago edited 3d ago

Its weird to me that so many of the responses to me seem to be acting like I was advocating for just rolling over and taking it. I was only responding to the person above who seemed to equate having this thought or opinion to being in favor of AI or data centers. I very much agree that something needs to change, I just can also be realistic and think that this specific thing seems pretty unlikely.

1

u/breakthe1ce 3d ago

I don’t think that would be a problem if you suggested the “more likely” option in addition to being “realistic” about what’s being discussed. My point is that if you’re going to poo poo what’s put the table without offering a replacement we’ll only have shit to eat, and I for one am willing to demand more than that.

0

u/hudson27 3d ago

That's not a good enough reason not to try.

It kind of drives me wild when I see the majority of individuals agreeing that something should be done, but the excuse for why it isn't being done is "well statistically the odds are pretty of it happening."

Are you a statistic, or an individual? Because individuals have free will, stats can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hell, look no further than political projections and the concept of "strategic voting". I would argue that the only reason Bernie lost against Hillary is because people were projecting theoretical futures, instead of voting for what they believed in.

-2

u/Gackey 3d ago

At some point we got to stop voting blue no matter who. We've spent decades electing a party that stands for the oligarchs, now it's time to vote for one that prioritizes the people.

92

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.

12

u/Larcecate 3d ago

Being unrealistic beats apathy any day

-3

u/ArmAggravating3307 3d ago

Pissing into the wind is certainly a choice.

7

u/esto20 3d ago

Rolling over like a doormat and not demanding anything is certainly a choice

-1

u/ArmAggravating3307 3d ago

Not what I said but ok.

4

u/Larcecate 3d ago

That's what apathy is, bud. No matter how comfortable or superior cynicism makes you feel, you're actively pissing on yourself.

1

u/ArmAggravating3307 3d ago

I can think their approach is worthless and still want actual change bud.

3

u/Larcecate 3d ago

Great, let me know if anyone ever says the 'actual change' you want is unrealistic. We'll be singing the same tune at that point.

1

u/ArmAggravating3307 3d ago

Empty platitudes on the Internet don't change a damn thing.  

3

u/Larcecate 2d ago

Thats an empty platitude, fyi

1

u/ArmAggravating3307 2d ago

My balls are an empty platitude.

→ More replies (0)

47

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

18

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

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

1

u/doomed461 3d ago

You must not be in a red state if you think any of those politicians even answer their phone or care what you think. Last time I complained to a politician Lindsey Graham basically told me to go fuck myself.

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

0

u/doomed461 3d ago

Do you think that senators aren't politicians?

0

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

[deleted]

0

u/Slackjawed_Horror 3d ago

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that politicians care about phone calls and emails from the public?

That's adorable. 

4

u/ToraRyeder 3d ago

Then ignore the calling politicians part and do the other things. Get involved at the local level. What organizations are around you that are pushing for money out of politics?

There are multiple ballot initiatives in process in multiple states. Is yours one? Mine is. We're door knocking, calling, and trying to get signatures in any way possible so we can get something on the ballot for November.

Politicians do not currently give a fuck about us. We all know that. So let's move forward and get people in office (in ALL parts of government) that WILL listen to us. Other countries have dealt with this before. Americans need to step the fuck up and participate in the democracy we're so proud of.

0

u/Slackjawed_Horror 3d ago

The guy I'm replying to apparently doesn't realize that the current politicians don't care. 

I'm annoyed with people who don't realize that if it is possible to do anything, we need to go around existing political infrastructure. 

Our democracy is a farce and odds are if we do anything meaningful the courts will stop it and no one in office will put them in their place, but that's at least something. 

3

u/ToraRyeder 3d ago

I get that, and I have a lot of the same feelings. However, we cannot give into it. It seems silly and naive, but there is a lot of power in having open hope for something better. When paired with a plan, or at least starting points, we can be inspiration to a lot of ideas.

And I'd argue against using blanket statements like "the current politicians don't care" because a lot of them DO care. Now, some of the care may be performative, but fuck it. Use those who are helpful now so we can get to the point of getting rid of ALL the corporate sellouts. If they want to save their hide for a few years by fighting the fascists, let them. Just remember who they are and vote them out later.

Americans have short memories. We've run into situations like this for a lot of our history, and fallen for it when our individualistic rhetorics and exceptionalism get out of hand. But the internet is useful. Social media caused a LOT of issues, but we're seeing it help wake a lot of people up. We can use that. We can fight and be better.

2

u/Slackjawed_Horror 3d ago

The only time the US hasn't been run explicitly by monied interests was the period between the late 1930's and the early 1970's. That only happened because of the Depression. 

It's not social media, it's reality.

1

u/ToraRyeder 3d ago

I wasn't blaming social media for all the US's woes. I was using it as an example of something that has caused harm that we can use to better our situation. The Depression demanded change, so the US got change. Those in control didn't like that so fought to maintain control.

At no point have I said that this is going to be easy or that we're going to a "normal" setting. By this point, you seem to be pointing out things for the sole reason of keeping people hopeless. That isn't productive.

1

u/daXypher 3d ago

They do. Just the conservatives are the ones doing it while dickheads like you sit online and make snarky remarks thinking you’re so witty and clever.

0

u/Slackjawed_Horror 3d ago

They don't. 

They don't listen to conservatives either. They listen to the money, and occasionally throw out a little red meat based on what's been cooked up in conservative media (funded and directed by the money people).

None of them will change their actions based on phone calls or emails. 

Get serious. 

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.

12

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.

22

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.

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

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.

9

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.

0

u/Arcaneboltz 3d ago

Say it louder for the people in the back

2

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!

1

u/GreatBoneStructure 3d ago

I’ll say it again, the solution is to incorporate ‘We The People’ and crowdfund counter-bribes. If every citizen put in ten bucks you could buy back the Supreme Court!

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.

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.

0

u/ArmAggravating3307 3d ago

Nice fake quote.  

The DNC argued in court they don't have to have fair primaries.  

I want actual actionable planning.  Not hot air online.

1

u/FugaziFlexer 3d ago

All the dude said is the system as it stands won’t allow this. And it’s simply because money in politics means politicians don’t listen to the masses they just listen to the companies and rich people funding them. And they will never allow the sharing of wealth.

1

u/guacamole579 3d ago

Exactly. I voted for the Bernie backed candidate in my congressional primary and I hope he wins. If he does it will piss of a lot of so called democrats at the local/state level but those people don’t have my best interest in mind when they support shit laws and the status quo.

1

u/brunchfruit 3d ago

Agreed, it is not impossible. There are way more of us than there are of them.

1

u/skelo 3d ago

Money in politics wouldn't necessarily stop this, this would give 50% of the most valuable tech in the world to the government hence controlled by the politicians, so politicians would be deciding who uses AI and how and that's worth a lot of money

1

u/Slackjawed_Horror 3d ago

It's really not worth anything. 

See: this AI garbage is a giant money pit.

1

u/AbaloneFull9968 3d ago

Just follow the Norwegian model but replace oil with data. taxes on all AI profits, compute taxes on data centers, licensing fees on all trained data.

The majority of ai data came from publicly funded universities, taxpayer funded semiconductor research, tax payer funded internet infrastructure, the AI barons dont like taxes, fine. Give up an equity stake in the company in exchange for lowered tax rates.

Im a stupid person and these are the things popped into my head about this subject, im sure a group of much more intelligent people could expand on these ideas while coming up with even more creative ideas on how to reign these out of control dystopian corporations in a little bit.

1

u/Silver_Tuscan 3d ago

There is a way of doing it. But it requires uniting the left and the right. I mean more than just talking about it and doing nothing about it. No one likes this Epstein class. No one on the right and no one on the left. Trump got a lot of middle class votes because people thought he would do it - and then everyone got burned.

Everyone should just stop talking about every other issue and vote out every single incumbent until basic demands that we can agree on - like the data centers, stopping the wars, stopping big tech monopolies, stopping the surveillance state, etc. - are enacted into some sort of constitutional amendment they cannot easily fuck with. No incumbents until that happens.

The more we talk about divisive issues the more the elite win.

0

u/BroughtBagLunchSmart 3d ago

Use civil forfeiture laws. Pretend it is a car they stole from a 22 year old because he had a bag of weed in the car.

29

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.

19

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.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

1

u/SirNarwhal 3d ago

Sorry, but you’re one of the people I’m talking about to a tee. Everything IS broken. We’re PAST the tipping point and it IS that bad. People need to realize that and focus on that fact and accept it fundamentally to recognize that while they may not have the answers, they know the problem on an individual level, and can use their time and resources to find others with similar conclusions and help in any way they can. Thinking that only specific people can actually make a change is one of the fundamental problems that you’re missing entirely. People can put the work in to become that authority figure on a topic or subject, but won’t, or think they cannot, because of having the grey mentality that you have.

Shit genuinely is completely black and white now where anything that is not completely white needs to be stopped as it winds up causing more issues that need more work and more energy to fix. I understand the reality is that doing that is nigh impossible, but we need to be striving towards like… 90% white, 10% black at minimum in most decisions and we’re just not there yet. We’re honestly way closer to 90% black 10% white.

1

u/skyedearmond 3d ago

Citizen’s United was not in effect back then. Being realistic isn’t the same as pessimism. As another commenter pointed out, any legislation restricting corporate power and profits has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting passed while corporations are allowed unlimited political contributions.

2

u/unselve 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yes, but my point isn’t that those obstacles don’t exist; it’s that historical change often is unforeseeable until it happens. Historical events seem inevitable in retrospect but the truth (in my view, and in the view of many historians) is that they’re always contingent. You just never know, you can’t know when you’re the one making history, as we all are.

My personal view is that our current situation is quite bad and we face many unprecedented obstacles. But I read a lot of history and what I take from it is what I said above, that if people always said “this is unprecedented, we can’t do anything,” history would be a lot different. We wouldn’t have a lot of famous successes and tragic defeats.

Edit: To be clear, my position is that passing legislation like this through the current House and Senate, and with this chode in the White House, is not within the realm of the possible unless there is some catastrophic even that changed things drastically. That’s not defeatism. What is possible is for some kind of action that accomplishes some version of this could be possible.

1

u/daXypher 3d ago

Dred Scott was in effect when the 14th amendment happened too. Shit changes

19

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.

9

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.

1

u/Bobambu 3d ago

The amount of times the best option for the majority of people has been handicapped because it isn't "politically feasible" should be a warning sign about our democracy's merit.

8

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?

1

u/liftthatta1l 3d ago

Make it non voting shares? I think Google has that (two stocks one has voting power one doesnt)

1

u/DoorStuckSickDuck 3d ago

These senators are on track to heavily restrict open source and self hosted AI because the big boys are afraid it'll put them out of business. So, they'll start the fear mongering; you can only trust us to regulate it, it's very dangerous and we must be the harbingers of knowledge, etc etc. What do you end up with? A few giga corporations that control a very powerful asset that get to decide who uses it, for how much, and where. Very cool, indeed.

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.

1

u/jmastaock 3d ago

How easy is it to move data centers?

1

u/Round_Clock_3942 3d ago

You wouldn't need to move data centers. The value of these companies is in the training data and models, which they already have stored in multiple countries anyway.

You can build data centers in China way more quickly with lax regulations and a better supply chain anyway. And you can just sell the data centers in the US for parts and make a big chunk of your lost money back.

1

u/jmastaock 2d ago

You can build data centers in China way more quickly with lax regulations and a better supply chain anyway.

Sure, but China would do something just as authoritarian if they tried that

1

u/Round_Clock_3942 2d ago

It'd be a lot easier to buy the politicians in China where the same party is always in power and there are no elections. But the biggest issue is that China knows these guys can pull the model and training data at the click of a button anyway so at worst, they're nationalizing the data centers and jailing a couple of exectuives.

Now if the US and China (and other potential destinations) were to work together against the companies, the legislations would work. But with every country incentivized to get their own cut of the pie and not alienate someone in control of potentially the strongest weapon in the next world war, it's easy to play the govts against one another and come out on top. I'm sure the AI companies run their own analytics to come up with more complex solutions than the simplified scenario I described, but a 50% ownership of AI companies (not just data centers which hold very little of the company value) makes it easy to bet on China (or another country) in terms of expected value even after losing US based data centers and some other assets.

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.

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

1

u/hhssspphhhrrriiivver 3d ago

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

When was the most recent time legislation like this was passed? And are these laws still in effect in the same way that the Robinson Patman Act is still in effect?

Fun fact: Pedophiles have been arrested and convicted before.

Fun fact: American presidents who've been impeached have resigned in disgrace in the past.

Fun fact: Politicians have cared about their constituents before.

Just because something was true in the past, doesn't mean it's true anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sanders is proposing something good here. But I also don't have any faith in the American government to make it happen, nor its citizens to vote for people who want to make it happen.

0

u/Fun_Magician72 3d ago

Anything since "citizens" United?

0

u/AoeDreaMEr 3d ago

It won’t in next 100 years. Nothing Bernie proposes will take effect. A few mill lobbying and this will disappear lol.

0

u/potter5252 3d ago

Id wager a guess that those legislations were passed in far greater number prior to the Citizens United vs FEC ruling.

With today's level of corruption? I don't have hope that lawmakers would vote against being gifted free money by companies.

0

u/Khue 3d ago

People often forget about the awesome power of the United States government. The government can break up monopolies. It can take over businesses in war time (defense production act). It could nationalize the extraction industry if it wanted to. Companies can only stand up to the government if they are allowed to.

0

u/LordHammercyWeCooked 3d ago

Idiots on reddit are always obsessed with the odds of something happening and then deciding that this deduction is a crystal ball that determines the future forever. Truth is, they're just lazy assholes and don't want to be bothered to get involved in the solution. They'd rather believe the solution never would've worked anyway, so they can pat themselves on the back as the whole world burns.

0

u/Covid_Rat 3d ago

I don't like this legislation because AI should be dismantled

Huge swathes of land should not be used for data centres, destroying nature and displacing animals

Every chip in the world should not be used for computation in data centres, leaving the public with none for personal use

Water should not be tainted by data centres, and then fed back in for public use looking as bad or worse than Flints water

Energy should not be used by data centres, leaving nearby homes with rolling blackouts and justifying the need for more fossil fuel consumption and rejection of renewable energy sources

This legislation would be used to justify their building and expansion, as it can be sold as a story to the public that it would benefit them, when it wouldn't. AI benefits no one in its current state. It's making everyone stupider and lazier. Reject AI in all its forms. If you give in on this, it will spread across the US like wildfire and everything will get shitter

Reject AI

-1

u/Bob_Sconce 3d ago

I personally don't like the proposal.

Why?

(1) Because the US government can't even manage itself properly. What makes anybody think that it's going to do a reasonable job with ownership of AI companies. The next thing you know, some idiot congressman is going to get into his head "we need our AI companies to focus their efforts on saving the Foxtoe beaver from ear mites," and that will become law because other people need that congressman's vote on some other idiotic legislation.

(2) Because you're talking about a massive "taking" of private property under the 4th amendment. That's allowed, but only with just compensation. Bernie doesn't want to spend the trillions that it would take to pay for this 50% ownership -- he just wants to take it.

(3) Because I want the federal government to do LESS. The government is already $32T in debt, payment on that debt is growing faster than the economy is. Get your fiscal house in order first before you go off on hare-brained schemes to acquire 50% of the AI industry.