Trump AI Czar Says 'No Federal Bailout For AI' After OpenAI CFO's Comments (cnbc.com) 78
Venture capitalist David Sacks, who is serving as President Donald Trump's AI and crypto czar, said Thursday that there will be "no federal bailout for AI." From a report: "The U.S. has at least 5 major frontier model companies. If one fails, others will take its place," Sacks wrote in a post on X. Sacks' comments came after OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar said Wednesday that the startup wants to establish an ecosystem of private equity, banks and a federal "backstop" or "guarantee" that could help the company finance its infrastructure investments.
She softened her stance later in a LinkedIn post and said OpenAI is not seeking a government backstop for its infrastructure commitments. She said her use of the word "backstop" clouded her point. [...] Sacks said the Trump administration does want to make permitting and power generation easier, and that the goal is to facilitate rapid infrastructure buildouts without raising residential electricity rates. "To give benefit of the doubt, I don't think anyone was actually asking for a bailout. (That would be ridiculous.)," he wrote.
She softened her stance later in a LinkedIn post and said OpenAI is not seeking a government backstop for its infrastructure commitments. She said her use of the word "backstop" clouded her point. [...] Sacks said the Trump administration does want to make permitting and power generation easier, and that the goal is to facilitate rapid infrastructure buildouts without raising residential electricity rates. "To give benefit of the doubt, I don't think anyone was actually asking for a bailout. (That would be ridiculous.)," he wrote.
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless Americans get enough balls to nationalize Banks when they collapse so that they don't take the whole economy down with them then those banks are too big to fail and they can take on crazy high risk loans and make you pay for them.
And I guarantee you when they collapse you will open up your wallet and your 401k and give them everything because the alternative is to nationalize the banks and that's socialism. And TV will make you so afraid of socialism that they don't even need the rob you you'll follow over yourself to give them your money just like they did in 2008.
We are hostages with Stockholm syndrome.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with both of you, in that either nationalization or trust-busting would solve this recurring problem. Guess which one's going to happen?
You guessed it: nothing!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What we're going to do instead is panic over trans girls playing field hockey in the Midwest...
When it's your daughter getting slammed to the ground, you'll get it. This isn't black and white. Both are of concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be missing this: we're not talking about Trump. We are talking about men playing in women's sports. These are not hypotheticals. Some of these things are known, via the news, to have happened. If you're concerned about people who votes for Trump because of the trans issue, you should really take a step back and look at why it is such an overpowering issue. You should also look at the fact that people were looking at 45, not what 47 is turning out to be. And finally, you go and try to play the "b
Re: (Score:2)
It's a hot-button issue because there's a entire right-wing media ecosystem that keeps harping on it, while ignoring other issues.
I'm seeing articles about this in both right and left wing publications. It's a national discussion and it's rooted in the fact that parents don't want their daughters beaten up by men while they're playing sports. Their daughters don't want to play against them, either.
Trump 45 was a rapist - this was a known fact. Trump 45 deployed secret, masked police - this was a known fact. Trump 45 and Trump the candidate made his racism loud and obvious, but thanks to willful blindness and complicit media, people kept believing he didn't mean the things he was actually saying.
From here on out, feel safe in knowing that if a part of your comment mentions Trump, "racist/bigot/etc." that part will be completely ignored, as will this one. Keep your TDS out of this and so we can focusing on having an on-topic conversa
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read about how much harm is caused by conversion therapy, and try again on that statement.
Given that they try, I stand by my statement. You still have yet to confront what I said about my past. You have yet to counter what I've said about people in tribes in Africa "in the wild" understand that the behavior is absolutely bizarre. People have had a problem with people mutilating their bodies and trans way long before 2016. One example off the top of my head is the song Funky Cold Medina by Tone- Loc. Can you imagine how devastating I'd feel today if I'd had an irreversible surgery after outgrowin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that abnormally large biological women don't exist?
I've seen videos, even contemporary ones, of incredibly strong women losing to average gym jocks. They exist, but they can't compete with men. Some do get jacked up on testosterone, but you're not really dealing with a typical case then, and even then they still tend to lose. In your case, a 97lb kid in 9th grader is about the same size as most other 9th graders, maybe a little smaller. Notably, weren't playing junior/senior football where you would have been crushed. Also, where are the trans males in male
Re: That's absolutely not true (Score:3)
I don't really think that's a concern so much as the case of Lia Thomas, who has, or at least had, woman's swimming world records that went pretty well beyond what any real woman has ever achieved, and probably ever will. The only one who probably ever could would likely be another transwoman, probably shutting out any women from ever obtaining such a title again. At least, had the WAC not rescinded those titles.
Re: (Score:2)
Their performance was mid at best.
Where did you read differently? [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That's absolutely not true (Score:2)
In a topic that has nothing to do with culture wars, you're bringing up the subject of culture wars, while also complaining about culture wars being a distraction...
I mean, I agree that it is a distraction from bigger issues, but you obviously don't. You could have just said that we're being distracted by culture wars, but then you went right into engaging in one of them for no particular reason. It's not as if somebody shot you in the neck over it or anything like that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a bank is now a requirement for life, and thus it should be socialized. - The people should have control.
Whether that is done by nationalizing, or keeping them small enough so that new players have a chance is the discussion to have.
Re: Bullshit (Score:3)
Or you could have just one bank nationalized and let the rest compete against that as a baseline
You're mixing something up (Score:2)
What you should be doing is heavily regulating the banks and the stock market in order to prevent those crashes in the first place. Ask any serious economist and they will tell you in detail the regulations and laws need it to stop the constant boom and bust cycle the cost is all our jobs. It's all well understood because it's all shit we figured out after the Great depression. We just keep repealin
Re: (Score:2)
You don't nationalize the banks immediately. When they crash the economy that's when you nationalize them. What you should be doing is heavily regulating the banks and the stock market in order to prevent those crashes in the first place. Ask any serious economist and they will tell you in detail the regulations and laws need it to stop the constant boom and bust cycle the cost is all our jobs. It's all well understood because it's all shit we figured out after the Great depression. We just keep repealing those laws because we're stupid and we don't know what a fucking chesterton's fence is. Several countries in the wake of 2008 nationalized their Banks and then slowly privatize them again. They came out of the crash much faster and in much better condition. Nationalization is something you do when you have lost control of your banking system and the people who are in control are using that system against you. Basically when you are in a hostage situation you take the gun away from the terrorist. Then when everything comes down you throw the terrorist in prison and put somebody else in charge of the building you just stormed who isn't a terrorist. What we did instead was given to all of that terrorists demands and then some.
The terrorists own the building and all the staff. The government officials that should be regulating Wall Street and the Bank (and businesses and...) are owned outright by those same Wall Street and Bank (and business and...) folks that cause the boom bust cycles in the first place. So when they screw the pooch and another bust comes crashing over society, the very first thing that happens is the handlers inform the owned government officials that they need to raid the taxpayer coffers to bail them out. "T
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking brilliant.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but the only person here with Stockholm's Syndrome is you. You are held hostage to your failed beliefs that communism and socialism are the only way forward when history has shown that they simply lead to authoritarianism.
Re: Bullshit (Score:1)
And what authoritarian government established itself based on the principles of a free market economy? Do tell.
Because I can name countless ones who established themselves based on the idea that an economy under their exclusive control will make your life so much better. In case you haven't noticed, rsilvergun believes strongly in that idea, despite the fact that historically, every single person, with the exception of the politburo, has been made much worse off. Every last one of them never recovered until
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the simplistic thinking (rather, downright incorrect) is calling the Nordic countries socialist, or even calling them a "blended" economy. They're really not. At all. I went into this a bit earlier to somebody else who made a similar claim to yours.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
You guys keep advocating for socialism even though you know next to nothing about it. If we take you guys at your word for what you desire in an economy, it aligns much more closely with another term entirely:
https://en.w [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
For example, you truthfully note that it has no minimum wage.
But that's because it doesn't need one. 70% of its work force belongs to a union, and over 90% of its working population covered under some collective aggrement. Those who do not have a comprehensive and generous safety net.
They pay less than we do for all of this, because they do it far more efficiently than our private-public system.
Read here [sweden.se] about how healthcare works there.
Instead
Re: (Score:2)
I find your classification of Sweden somewhat misleading.
For example, you truthfully note that it has no minimum wage.
But that's because it doesn't need one. 70% of its work force belongs to a union, and over 90% of its working population covered under some collective aggrement. Those who do not have a comprehensive and generous safety net.
The intent isn't to mislead, I'm aware of this and in fact I think this is vastly preferable. There are many problems with minimum wage, but probably the biggest one is the idea of a country-wide minimum wage. Effectively the argument is that every job, no matter what industry or in what city, is worth at least X per Y hours. No room for negotiation, no room for market realities, no room for variations in local conditions. While not socialist, it heavily borrows from the totally bullshit labor theory of val
Re: (Score:2)
The intent isn't to mislead, I'm aware of this and in fact I think this is vastly preferable. There are many problems with minimum wage, but probably the biggest one is the idea of a country-wide minimum wage. Effectively the argument is that every job, no matter what industry or in what city, is worth at least X per Y hours. No room for negotiation, no room for market realities, no room for variations in local conditions. While not socialist, it heavily borrows from the totally bullshit labor theory of value.
That's my fault then. I... inferred your position incorrectly. Solid position to take.
I still refuse to call these guys liberal. Liberal, in my mind, means erring on the side of liberty. These guys effectively hold the view that if the majority just doesn't like your industry, whatever the reason, then the government has some kind of duty to take it over, shut it down, etc. I don't know what separates that from fascism. Case in point, rsilvergun (and many others) who suggested recently that the government should nationalize all of the banks.
Ya, I read that comment by him as well. Fucking insanity.
At the same time, the current US Government is actively nationalizing private corporations, and applying threats-against-their-property to them in order to get them to do what it likes, and also doesn't seem to realize it.
It really feels to me like we're arguing (as a country) about what group of individuals and businesses we want to define as Aryan more so than wh
Re: (Score:2)
Fascist systems are very capitalist. The state doesn't own the shit- rich businessmen do. The difference is that if the businessmen don't play ball, they get a ventilated braincase.
So what is the other way forward? (Score:1)
I mean you are welcome to ignore technological unemployment, trillions of dollars of negative Financial impacts from climate change, the growing influence of money
Using your sock puppet to mod me down (Score:2)
Also you put way too much effort into this silly little dying website
Re: (Score:3)
So Sweden is some sort of authoritarian hell hole in your book? That's odd, the socialist Scandinavian countries consistently are in the top of the rankings for having the happiest populations. Shouldn't they be miserable and poor? I'm so confused . . .
Re: Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Except they're not socialist. They're very much market driven, arguably more so than the united states is. It's kind of funny because people like Bernie keep talking about them as if they are, and wants us to be more like what he thinks they are.
You brought up Sweden, so let's go with that. You know Sweden relies largely upon the free market for it's education system? They already have a school voucher system, and it seems to work pretty well. I think it's a great idea. What do you think?
Or is this one of those things where you're thinking about welfare when the word "socialism" comes out of your mouth. If so don't worry, you're not alone, most progressives use the two interchangeably even though they have very different meanings. Probably also worth mentioning that people who actually understand socialism generally don't look favorably upon welfare spending, particularly Marx and Engels.
But Sweden actually has the high ground there as well. You see, the US spends a lot more of its GDP on welfare programs than Sweden does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Probably also worth mentioning that they don't have a concept of a minimum wage. So yeah, I agree, it wouldn't hurt for us to be a bit more like Sweden.
Re: (Score:3)
It helps 99% of them are the same culture, speak the same language, and have the same religion. Oh and the population of any of those Scandinavian countries is less then NYC. Let's not even talk about Norway's abundant natural resources. Must be nice to have fewer then 10 million citizens but have a huge oil reserve AND geography that allows them to go green while exporting all that oil.
That REALLY compares to USA with 330 million people spread out on an entire continent.
Comparing those countries to USA is
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call the current day administration?
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Well they sure as hell aren't when we get so intellectually lazy we dub anything to the right of ghengis khan "COMMUNISM".
Is Keynsianism too "communist" for you? Theres a solid and battle tested set of principles that build wealth while protecting the little guys.
If it is, then maybe just follow Adam Smiths advice and regulate capitalism in the interest of the common man. Is Adam Smith too communist for you?
What IS your baseline here beyond vapid libertarian-ish slogans?
Re: (Score:2)
Get a fucking job loser!
Re: (Score:2)
My job told me to apply for SNAP.
Bankruptcy? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
We need voters to stop freaking out over stupid little culture war and moral panics and focus on the economy demanding strong regulation of Banks and Wall Street using already understood principles.
And we need a country of voters that know what a fucking chesterton's fence is.
The Industry? No. Certain players? Let's talk (Score:2)
I also 100% believe they would "take a stake" in particular companies in return for... certain considerations.
Re: (Score:2)
If AI is adopted by the Pentagon, which it certainly has (see Palantir, etc.) then they will rescue their contractors if need be. Usually they don't have too since the contracts are usually good enough to keep suppliers afloat, but if the market fallout is bad enough that it will hamper the overall execution of what they need, they will open the purse strings (see Intel)
Re: (Score:3)
Explicitly taking stakes in private companies is a lot more problematic than a lot of people seem to think.
Republicans used to claim 'picking winners and losers' was a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans mean anyone but them picking winners and losers is a bad thing. When they do it it's a good thing. By definition, if they do it it's good and legal and patriotic. And heroic. And benevolent. Nixon said that out loud, but there was still enough democracy to make him pay for being a criminal. Bush/Cheney rewrote the rules even further and Trump/Vance are doin whatever they want now with impunity.
Toxic optimism (Score:3)
merely a goal? (Score:2)
"...the goal is to facilitate rapid infrastructure buildouts without raising residential electricity rates."
If infrastructure buildouts are needed to power AI why is it merely a "goal" to avoid raising residential electric rates? Why should the society pay even a penny for electric wastefully consumed by billionaire's companies?
5 is not that much (Score:3)
In fact, it's a low enough number that failing of one AI giant, can make stocks and shares of other companies take a quick tumble, too. Market panic.
Re: (Score:2)
n fact, it's a low enough number that failing of one AI giant, can make stocks and shares of other companies take a quick tumble, too. Market panic.
Who cares? The people that invested unwisely get wiped out and the people who didn't carry on as if nothing ever happened. Gambling is the gambler's problem, not mine.
FFS, what? (Score:2)
"no federal bailout for AI."
Why should anyone bail their asses out, especially the average American?
These people are burning money by the truckload, but because their business 'model' sucks and they've dug themselves into a hole, someone is supposed to come along and throw MORE free money into their craptastic 'business'?
Someone make this make sense, because I can't do it.
So, in as few words as possible, why should anyone bail them out?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should anyone bail their asses out
Because important people who finance political campaigns might lose money, and of course that's no longer allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Because important people who finance political campaigns might lose money, and of course that's no longer allowed.
Ahhh, okay, now I understand.
IOW (Score:2)
Government says ‘no federal bailout for AI’
Translation:"AI is too big to fail, and we are already planning on bailing out those trillionaires."
Bout to POP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First poster, rsilvergun, is right though. These companies like OpenAI aren't the ones to suffer from this. And they know it. When they go belly up, it's all the investors that'll loose their shirts. Sadly, that's every Joe average's retirement funds.
The hype reaches out and takes from all. :(
Re: (Score:3)
How's the saying go? Privatise the poor, socialise the rich.
It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
First poster, rsilvergun, is right though.
I am the first poster, and I do not know what an "rsilvergun" is. (Maybe I am misreading the syntax, and you are responding to and ddressing "rsilvergun", rather than identifying eir as the "first poster"?) Or perhaps you mean the second poster, who brought up banks, the subject which has dominated the thread.
If you are indeed referring to my post, I guess it's nice to know there is now one person who agrees with me....
Oh that's ironic... (Score:2)
Trial baloon yet again (Score:2)
Bringing the topic of "Failed AI company bailouts" to the federal government and national level news is a sign that it is a concern for both and the elites.
What's the replacement if there is an AI bust? If there is no replacement hype technology, how are they going to pump up the economy?
Even if interest rates go to 0, such as, in the post-2008 financial crisis, how many of the US population will have enough to buy homes or even be interested in buying a home when deflation makes them 2% or more cheaper e
Re: (Score:2)
What's the replacement if there is an AI bust? If there is no replacement hype technology, how are they going to pump up the economy?
The two spends from the gaztrillion investments are the production of the AI chips, and the clouds (and power plants) to run them. Maybe the answer will be to repurpose those for something that (a) works and (b) is profitable. Besides the bogus LLM crap that is driving all this nonsense, there are actual AI applications that can use that infrastructure. Maybe there will be enough of that to take over. Although one wonders why, if that could be true, it isn't what has created this situation. Maybe it's just
Re: (Score:2)
Modern monetary theory of infinite borrowing and government spending with 0 percent interest rates won't stimulate the economy.
Look, MMT really annoys me in its attempt to rebrand Keynesian fiscal stimulus as some kind of magical new discovery, but COVID certainly demonstrated that you can boost an economy in freefall if you just pour enormous amount of fiscal stimulus into it.
I mean, even the Neoliberal prophet Friedman was unequivocal about how the govt can create any amount of inflation if it really really wants too (helicopter money).
Now, whether that's what you should do, or the exact details of how you do it, or what the end