Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders And Sam Altman Are All Talking About Public Ownership In AI (apnews.com) 99
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders announced a plan for the public to take a 50% ownership stake in AI companies, remembers the Associated Press.
And then OpenAI's Sam Altman "told Sanders that he, too, wants the public to have equity in AI companies." Though the CEO said he couldn't support Sanders' threshold of 50%, he nonetheless wanted to work with him to advocate for the general idea, according to people with knowledge of the conversation. The nearly hourlong meeting in Sanders' Senate office this week, held at Altman's request, highlighted the inherent tension between AI powerhouses and policymakers as Americans are increasingly asked to accept the costs of the AI boom even as they remain unconvinced of its direct benefits.
Yet it's also creating odd political bedfellows fueled by populism as politicians from Sanders to President Donald Trump embrace giving the public a stake in AI's growth. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on Friday, Trump described a potential partnership "where the American people can benefit from the success of AI" and said executives from leading AI companies will visit the White House, "probably next week," to discuss the idea.
The article points out that Altman also met with congressional leaders from both of America's political parties.
And then OpenAI's Sam Altman "told Sanders that he, too, wants the public to have equity in AI companies." Though the CEO said he couldn't support Sanders' threshold of 50%, he nonetheless wanted to work with him to advocate for the general idea, according to people with knowledge of the conversation. The nearly hourlong meeting in Sanders' Senate office this week, held at Altman's request, highlighted the inherent tension between AI powerhouses and policymakers as Americans are increasingly asked to accept the costs of the AI boom even as they remain unconvinced of its direct benefits.
Yet it's also creating odd political bedfellows fueled by populism as politicians from Sanders to President Donald Trump embrace giving the public a stake in AI's growth. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on Friday, Trump described a potential partnership "where the American people can benefit from the success of AI" and said executives from leading AI companies will visit the White House, "probably next week," to discuss the idea.
The article points out that Altman also met with congressional leaders from both of America's political parties.
How about at least... (Score:2)
... some public ownership of compute, to offer out for grants to Open Source development, so that the commons can better keep up with the closed source providers?
Re: (Score:2)
(My personal hot take is that, both for copyright reasons ("Purpose and Character of the Use", aka for-profit, is a critical factor in determining copyright violation, such as from scraping), and general moral reciprocity argument (closed commercial models extracts profit from the commons without giving back), closed source trainers should fundamentally be required to give back to the commons in some meaningful way)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the possible adverse impacts to society would not be outweighed by something that small.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said the word "small"?
Re: (Score:2)
You said "Open Source development." Which in the grand scheme of things is pretty small.
Re: (Score:2)
What open source is capable of, when it comes to AI models, depends entirely on how much compute it has available.
It's about copyright (Score:2)
With some measure of public ownership, whatever that means, Congress can roll out an exemption allowing LLMs to snarfle anything ignoring copyright laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that would be a fair exchange for the resulting LLMs also having no copyright protection.
Re: It's about copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
It basically means it's controlled by career politicians. But we'll call it public anyway, even though in doing so, it doesn't have any practical difference to the public, but that word keeps rsilvergun happy because it offers the illusion of him being a partial owner, and thus, the illusion of him having a say over how it's run.
Altman would certainly like it, because partial government ownership means it's either protected from competitors, or guaranteed a bailout if it turns out that AI (or just his compa
Re: (Score:2)
LLMs regurgitate what they snarfle. Vibe coding isn't LLMs designing new code, but patching together code snippets taken from wherever the functional blocks were found.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the public want to "offer out" grants to "Open Source development"? What is the public benefit?
Re: (Score:2)
Free open source models that cost a tiny fraction as much for the same capabilities?
I can understand your stance if you think that AI is just a fad. But for those who believe that AI is going to kick off a new industrial revolution, it's the difference between that new industrial revolution being in the hands of people like Musk and Altman (who are profiting off of having scraped the commons), vs. the public as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The economy overall does better if you don't have rent-seeking leachers - if people can use the tools that empower their companies to produce goods and services cheaply and freely.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, what are you talking about? Who are you calling a "rent-seeking leacher"? And what's wrong with rent in the first place? "I have something you need that I'm not using, so I'll let you use it if you pay me."
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump (wants to fleece the public with worthless AI stock), Bernie Sanders (mistakenly believes the AI hype and wants to seize the means of production) And Sam Altman(wants to fleece the public with worthless AI stock).
TFTFY.
If they really believed in AI, do you really think they would share any of the proceeds with you?
Re: (Score:2)
Blame and cost shifting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And they may succeed. No idea why Sanders thinks this is a good idea though.
Re: Blame and cost shifting (Score:2, Insightful)
Because he's a communist. He never saw a business or asset he didn't want to pocket "for the people."
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
That is insightless nonsense. No surprise this is coming from you though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: Blame and cost shifting (Score:4, Informative)
Trump's self-worth has basically doubled since he was sworn in the second time. He's pretty obviously making copious use of insider knowledge, accompanied by vast amounts of pure grift.
He's probably recently invested in OpenAI through some shell scheme, and is now looking to drive the value up even more.
Re: Blame and cost shifting (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think Trump is a communist too?
Trump is a narcissist grifter who does not posess the emotional intelligence (or actual intelligence) to reason about having a moral or political position. Which plants him firmly as an authoritarian.
Re: Blame and cost shifting (Score:2)
/r/namechecksout
Re: Blame and cost shifting (Score:2)
In what way is a government buying shares of a publicly traded company communism?
What the fuck are people that stupid
Re: (Score:3)
He not even a socialist. He's a social democrat. That just means he wants more social services like public transit, single-payer health care, and public pre-school, not to seize control of capital.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all these non-tech folks have been brainwashed by the "AI" companies to think AI is real, its here and with them. All these tech CEOs laying off people in the name of AI has further reinforced the idea in the minds of these tech-uneducated politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
> No idea why Sanders thinks this is a good idea though.
Because most people don't understand what genAI is, and just think it's an amazing new technology that allows you to outsource thinking tasks to a computer. They're unaware of the limitations, they barely understand the energy impact, and Sanders is one of the majority there. Sanders has the added disadvantage that unlike you or I who have been given the chance to evaluate it, Sanders view on it is almost certainly 99% the result of lobbyists direct
Re: (Score:2)
> No idea why Sanders thinks this is a good idea though.
Because most people don't understand what genAI is, and just think it's an amazing new technology that allows you to outsource thinking tasks to a computer. They're unaware of the limitations, they barely understand the energy impact, and Sanders is one of the majority there. Sanders has the added disadvantage that unlike you or I who have been given the chance to evaluate it, Sanders view on it is almost certainly 99% the result of lobbyists directly or, more likely, indirectly - think about the news articles he reads, and how the NYT and Post and rest of the media have been taking Altman more or less at face value without ever actually questioning whether the entire thing might be anything other than fraud and psychology designed to hide the fraud.
Sanders' views are actually guided by multiple interviews he's done, quite publicly I might add, with technologists and computer scientists, all of which are either directly involved in the hype cycle of AI, or just adjacent enough to it to be pumping him full of the adrenaline rush style rhetoric that is keeping this hype train chug, chug, chugging along. I doubt very much he bothers directly evaluating it, as his career is filled with examples of him deferring to the experts, but spending a lot of time wi
Re: (Score:2)
The 50% question is where you will find the reason.>50% public ownership means public control. 50% public ownership just means a bailout.
No, it's UBI (Score:1)
So in other words, they want to offload their failing businesses onto the US Taxpayers.
That's not really the point.
The point is the upcoming revolution in autonomous labor, which will turn our current financial system upside down.
For reference, you might want to check out Manna [marshallbrain.com], by Marshall Brain (his actual name). It's an easy read, it's short, and it outlines the impact that robot labor will have on our current model of capitalism.
It's no secret that ChatGPT is useful, and a force multiplier for productive output. If that type of breakthrough can be achieved with physical processing, then m
Re: (Score:2)
"The point is the upcoming revolution in autonomous labor, which will turn our current financial system upside down."
It's not an "upcoming revolution" and that's not the point. "Autonomous labor" is a means to an end, the point is for very few people to own everything. Our "current financial system" is the enemy, not the thing we risk.
"It's no secret that ChatGPT is useful, and a force multiplier for productive output. "
It's no secret, but it's also no fact. It's a puked up VC sales pitch.
"...we know wit
Re: (Score:2)
If robots and computers are going to do most of the work in 10-20 years, then what do the owners of the robots and computers need the rest of us for? Among the 10 to 100 million or so people world wide who will own
Re: No, it's UBI (Score:2)
The problem is, giving all Americans a tiny fraction of ownership is cover for not doing anything else. If they dispersed the full $1T each adult would get about $6k. That hardly makes up for being made unemployable.
AI isn't a business (Score:3)
AI isn't a business. For a brief period of time it will be integrated into the economy as capital. That's not the same thing as a business. It's something you own to produce things. It's not a business in and of itself it's a cost center that is part of a business.
That's not going to last very long. Because that's not the purpose of ai..
The goal of AI is to completely replace wages. Or at least replace enough of them that the bargaining
Re: (Score:3)
My reaction too. The difference between ownership and taxation is the important thing to consider. Taxation takes benefit from success, ownership also imposes burden from failure.
Re: Blame and cost shifting (Score:2)
Such a tragedy else
Re: (Score:1)
This exactly. There's a potentially valid argument to be made for investing in the overall market but shoveling tax dollars into the trendy stocks of the moment? No.
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, they want to offload their failing businesses onto the US Taxpayers.
Yup. When you see a tech oligarch start to agree with Bernie fucking Sanders of all people, you know something is about to hit the damned fan. Now that they've sucked up as much as they can before reality starts to encroach on their built-up fantasy, it's about time to shift the burden.
Re: (Score:2)
While the company is overvalued so initial investors can earn money. It wouldn't for them a few months after going public since the stock would have crashed already, so it makes sense they talk about it now. At least that's how I see it.
Obviously, Altman wants this (Score:5, Insightful)
He knows he is due for a catastrophic business failure quite soon. Being partially publicly owned would give him access to taxpayer money...
Re:Obviously, Altman wants this (Score:5, Interesting)
He knows he is due for a catastrophic business failure quite soon. Being partially publicly owned would give him access to taxpayer money...
You mean Too Big To Fail money.
Let's call it what it is.
And if we thought American auto manufacturing arrogance was a bit Too Big to deal with before, just wait until Seven companies insist they're far too Magnificent to Fail..
Re: (Score:2)
You are not wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obviously, Altman wants this (Score:2)
Ford employs about 160,000 people.
OpenAI employs about 8,000 people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they manage to keep afloat a bit longer, there may be nothing left that could be used to bail them out.
Re: Obviously, Altman wants this (Score:2)
Few, for a minute there, I thought that I ran out if excuses to push Ai down your throat!
Ah yes... (Score:5, Informative)
Altman wants some public ownership, but not 50% which, presuming it would be a voting stake, would actually potentially matter for decision making. It's not a majority but if enough private market shareholders side with the public ownership, then it matters.
Instead, he wants enough for the public to have a stake specifically in the "approved" AI companies so that the companies are unambiguously "too big to fail". A chance to hold hostage a big enough chunk of wealth so that the government is stuck doing whatever it can to protect and ensure the selected companies, whether it be in the face of a souring market or upstart companies that didn't have the good fortune of being selected by the company. Meanwhile, the actual governance and decision making remain firmly status quo. Including decisions about how much to send back to "investors" and how much to "reinvest" (including setting their own compensation). They may even structure it so they can classify public ownership differently from private market, and reward investors in each class differently.
Just another ambition to privatize the gains and socialize the losses.
Re: Ah yes... (Score:2)
50% ownership by the public would result in 25% voting each way. On anything. Vested interests would build identity around the way they wanted to vote, and demonize the other side. Giving the public aggregate voting power accomplishes nothing.
Not really. Reality is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sam Altman is talking about his business.
Bernie Sanders is talking about how stopping that business harming people.
Donald Trump is talking.
Re:Not really. Reality is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya Altman and Sanders are talking about two different things entirely. Altman wants taxpayer money to support the company and take on the risk, Sanders wants guardrails. The title makes it sound like some big koombaya moment. Trump just trying to figure out how he can make it benefit him personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Approved, finally someone posted it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump is talking.
No, Donald Trump is talking about how he and his family can make a quick buck off of it.
The AI Get-Out-of-Bankruptcy Card (Score:5, Informative)
When in doubt, off load to the government. It isn't beyond the realm that el Bunko has done a secret deal with OpenAI for "some" federal control in exchange for a bit of dosh under the table. In fact, given his track record and Altman's ability to be ethically challenged, it is likely. And given that he'll be gone in 2.5 years of the remaining sentence in Hell we have of that dolt, he'll collect now and stick the next administration with the screw up. And it will screw up, that's what he does. Just look at his business record. He was found guilty in NY for financial fraud. It is who he is.
Sanders is angling for tax gains to help replace the taxes el Bunko has reduced on the wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sanders is angling for tax gains to help replace the taxes el Bunko has reduced on the wealthy."
Not really. Sanders has a lifetime of never doing anything beyond talking. He doesn't have specific goals and, frankly, tax/regulation reform is easier to achieve than socializing industry. Sanders is advocating for more than a new source of revenue, though what that would be is unclear as it always is with Sanders.
The way to replace taxes given to the wealthy is to tax the wealthy.
Because State ownership of the means (Score:2)
of production made the USSR what it is today!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That is false. Worse yet, if the USSR is anything today it is ascendent.
It's good to know your thinking on the issue ends at partisanship, though. Can save time that way.
Re: (Score:2)
if the USSR is anything today it is ascendent.
I wish I had funny mod points to give you - that's the most hilarious thing I've read all week!
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It enabled them to break down tank factories during the second world war, and move them elsewhere to resume production within months. It also enabled any aircraft factory to make any model that was needed.
But it could be that you have forgotten that the US also had standard tanks and could force companies to make that standard model. Those factories were not collective ownership, but the "means of production" were state controlled nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, that during a world war the US government paid manufacturers to build things for them is hardly the same as a political-economy that puts the means of production permanently in the state's hands.
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb. (Score:2)
A 50% stake is arbitrary, indefensible, and dumb.
How about a non-voting stake commensurate with the revenue linked to job loss?
If the AI models are trained on/made from the illegally hoovered intellectual property of countless American (or global) intellectual property owners, then distribute the ill-gotten gains among the original rights-owners. The AI companies can take their middle-man share.
Re: (Score:2)
What is your arbitrary, indefensible, and dumb solution then? 100%? How would "revenue linked to job loss" be determined?
As with anything involving industry and government, a primary concern is corruption. "revenue linked to job loss", "non-voting stakes", "distributing ill-gotten gains", "original rights owners", these are all opportunities for corruption. A solution that codifies the ways it will be made to fail is no solution.
Make It Personal To You. (Score:2, Insightful)
Assume that you personally took a ground breaking idea, turned it into a business, and grew it into something of massive value. You did it.
Now why would you give away ANY portion of it, let alone a major ownership stake? That doesn't makes sense and is counter to human nature.
You simply would not do that. I don't care how much of a granola crunching communist philanthropist you think you are. You would not just give away shares of your business for no return. How many of Bernie's millions has he given away?
Re: (Score:3)
"Assume that you personally took a ground breaking idea, turned it into a business, and grew it into something of massive value. You did it."
You can engage in your masturbatory fantasies of personal greatness all you want, but AI is no such thing. AI doesn't exist at all, at least in its current form, without the production of billions of people over enormous time.
"I don't care how much of a granola crunching communist philanthropist you think you are."
I suspect that's all you care about. That's all your
Re: (Score:2)
And yet companies do it all the time [wikipedia.org]. In this case, the ownership would transfer to a different entity, but the concept is extremely similar. If Altman actually is on board with this, then he believes he's not giving away half of the company for nothing in return. Which raises the question: what does he expect to get out of this arrangem
Put your money where your mouth is (Score:2)
Not the same (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And at least two of those people are full blown sociopaths whose actions we should oppose out of principle.
So you think this is Communism (Score:3)
only 5 min https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
David Shapiro critique: Bernie's plan sucks, actually (26m) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Some say UBI, UBC, wealth funds are not enough and goes into similar past proposals from history: "Universal Basic Capital:" Yet Another Technofascist Scam (37m) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It's hard to imagine... (Score:2)
...a worse outcome, but I'm sure that Trump and his cronies will come up with one
Re: It's hard to imagine... (Score:2)
Infinite Bubble (Score:2)
So when AI valuations pop, the taxpayer is now on the hook
Re: (Score:2)
Even sooner. When "the public" comes along to buy its 50%, the initial investors can bail and not risk an immediate valuation collapse.
Now, if the proposal involved nationalization, I'd like to be a fly on the wall of the meeting with the VCs currently holding shares.
Re: Infinite Bubble (Score:2)
I guarantee this is the big difference between what Bernie's bill says versus what the administration is proposing. In one case, you have a bill saying that the people receive ownership without having to incur the risk of an investment. The other proposal is very likely that the government it has to invest at the same valuation that all these VCs did.
Too Big to Fail (Score:2)
It hasn't produced anything yet, but somehow it's already Too Big to Fail? Sanders and Trump can go fuck themselves.
These are NOT the same things (Score:2)
The YOB just wants to get his own beak wet and Bernie is worried about people getting hurt. The motivations matter.
Sam Altman's use of the same words may be more troublesome. He sometimes sounds like he understands the risks there.
Too bad there's no funny here. And the FP branch was disappointing, too. Didn't lead anywhere interesting before I lost interest in following it... Both par scores for Slashdot these years. Almost enough to make a nerd want to invite comments from a genAI: "What is the best joke f
Re: (Score:2)
Sam Altman's use of the same words may be more troublesome. He sometimes sounds like he understands the risks there.
Sam Altman is a sociopath that isn't quite able to reach the "high functioning" metric.
Trump going full communist (Score:2)
Public ownership of a private develloped technology its more than just socialism. His friend Putin give Jim ideas.
that's the trio to deal with! (Score:2)
Well, two out of three aint bad.
Tax Tokens (Score:2)
I feel that tokens consumed by residents of a nation should be taxed by that nation in the form of tokens.
Those tokens are than used to improve the quality of life of it's citizens. Ideally not used for Offence or Defence purposes but rather put to addressing social issues in society.
Sounds like a great investment... (Score:2)
nd when the AI bubble collapses? (Score:2)
Then what? Nathan Sanders and Bruce Schneir have a safer idea: tax them. https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Public AI (Score:1)