[bilekas]

This feels a bit off.. How is the government supposed to be able to regulate them impartially when they're literally invested in them.

What if a competitive startup startup starts to really take away from OpenAi's profits and then all of a sudden requires some approval for merger with Anthropic for example, I don't know if I would trust the government to be fair in their decision here.

Leaving aside the potential for letting the government(tax payers) hold the bag if there is a collapse.

[larsnystrom]

I assume that’s why Altman wants the government as a co-owner.

[amelius]

Everything seems rotten with this administration.

[chinathrow]

And sama.

[potsandpans]

I'll take Sam over amodei.

It's a both are bad choice.

[bigyabai]

Sam, the proprietor of Woldcoin?

Amodei might play hardball, but he's got nothing on sama's evil villain ambitions.

[potsandpans]

Why downvote me for an opinion?

Anyways, I'll take a liar over a zealot anyday.

[fittingopposite]

And Sama over Trump?

[chrisjj]

Which of these two administrations? :)

[blasphemers]

Wasn't Bernie saying the government should confiscate half of OpenAI and Anthropic. This seems like sama is just trying to get ahead of it.

[Omatic810]

True, especially since President Sanders tends to be a bit heavy-handed on exerting political pressure. He's been issuing an unprecedented number of executive orders since he took office...

[mrguyorama]

5% vs 50% is a dramatic difference in how things would work out.

[CodingJeebus]

Not to mention that a government ownership stake also incentivizes a bailout if this all goes bust.

[rchaud]

A 5% stake in an overvalued private company without public financials and with an indeterminate timeline to profitability is a bailout. Shareholders cash out while the taxpayer is stuck with the bill.

[triceratops]

Is the government buying their stake or being given a stake? In the second scenario there's no bagholding.

[linhns]

With the way they're treading on, I'd not be surprised if a bailout happens in the next decade.

[HWR_14]

Why?

[HardwareLust]

"Too big to fail."

[rayiner]

Wouldn’t the solution to that be for the government to also demand a 5% stake in every AI company? Along the lines of what Sanders wants to do?

[bilekas]

"Demand". What kind of government would you like ?

Sanders doesn't want that actually.

Taxes are not investments in your company. They're your contribution to the infrastructure and people to help your company grow. In theory. The US seems to just let rich not pay.

[rayiner]

> Demand". What kind of government would you like

I think many americans on both sides sides of the aisle are in the mood for a government that demands a stake rather than asking nicely. If there’s a loser in the last 10 years of politics it’s the Cato Institute economic libertarians.

[downrightmike]

We really need to go back to the 95% tax system on these giant corps

[bilekas]

I think that's just gonna make companies set up abroad. But an individual tax of asset wealth over 1 billion, I agree.

[downrightmike]

Then local companies spring up and fill the void.

[simiones]

> How is the government supposed to be able to regulate them impartially when they're literally invested in them.

That is exactly the point of this move, especially during the Trump administration.

[senordevnyc]

You’re completely correct, of course, but I also think it’s worth remembering that the current regulatory environment is also made up of people, so the opportunity for corruption is already there. It does seem preferable to at least have the government putting its thumb on the scales to benefit the country at large, versus money under the table that benefits politicians and bureaucrats.

[stouset]

This is quite literally government control of the means of production, which is the central tenet of the economic philosophy that the right repeatedly claims is their greatest mortal fear: socialism.

[cmrdporcupine]

The Trump/Bessent/Lutnick grouping has no interest in regulating "impartially." Quite the opposite. That's the illusion of US capitalism 30 years ago.

Today's is explicitly more like Putin's Russia: the state has been captured by a series of private interests, one of whom is kingmaker, and you have to pay to play.

It's transactional and parasitical, not bureaucratic or regulatory. As long as the King and his friends get their cut your bridge can open, your new AI model can launch, or the US gov't will back up your crazy business with gov't debt.

It's not a stable system, but it's a system.

[bilekas]

I didn't mention specific politics because those are mutable. Sometimes good sometimes bad. What is in place today can change tomorrow, but holding 5% of a sketchy investment, it's a bit different. Having to bail them out.. It's another mess.

[cucumber3732842]

>This feels a bit off.. How is the government supposed to be able to regulate them impartially when they're literally invested in them.

Was the government impartial to begin with? Or were they stomping things and handing out favorable treatment based on the political whims of the minute?

Seems to me like "hey buddy you own some (but not too much) of this too so play the long game" provides somewhat of a counter incentive.

Will it work? Will it do the opposite and make things worse? Heck if I know.