Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

sanders.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 290 posts

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#91

Post by w10-1 »

This is more interesting than it looks, because it's using normal corporate control rather than regulation.

Obviously the current stakeholders hate losing control and wealth, but that's not the biggest issue.

Senator Sander's goal is not for some vast public to share the wealth, but for the government to have a veto on what gets done, to limit the collateral damage/exported costs. That's a classical government function.

However, the record of regulatory capture is nearly perfect, so it's likely the reverse would be achieved: the government-sponsored providers being a required intermediary in all knowledge work, with a corresponding incentive to seize those reins.

The probabilistic range of possibilities looks bleak: Now that all regulatory or quasi-governmental agencies of any import (Fed, FDA, EPA, Congress, Courts, CPB) have demonstrated remarkable plasticity to political whim, one would anticipate the worst would come of creating a political franchise out of fighting for control over AI; it would corrupt other aspects of politics.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#92

Post by mindslight »

I'm sorry to say, but this is a losing position, as in one you only adopt when you've already lost and are trying to bargain. It presupposes that the AI companies are unregulateable, and that the only possible avenue of influence/dividend is through ownership. Contrast with the traditional idea that when companies create harm, the government works to stop that harm by default. Or that if these companies actually do succeed at rolling up up the distributed economy into a handful of centralized companies, the government steps in to tax their outsized gains to preserve some semblance of a distributed economy. Furthermore, what does said "ownership" actually do ? If the government is unable to regulate these companies, then it is also unable to reliably exercise a voting interest or insist on receiving dividends - if the companies are this powerful, then whoever actually controls them can always alter the terms and reject the "owners'" demands.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#93

Post by triceratops »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #5

Why half of AI and not half of Walmart & Exxon & Apple? Government spending is already ~40% of GDP. And what do we get with this half? A sovereign wealth fund? That seems like a great tool for a certain corrupt politician to use as a carrot to make CEO's bend to his/her whims. What benefit does that have for anyone else? You can't build a sovereign wealth fund if you're transferring all the money out. That's just mor…

> Government spending is already ~40% of GDP.

> A sovereign wealth fund? That seems like a great tool for a certain corrupt politician to use as a carrot to make CEO's bend to his/her whims.

Use the sovereign wealth fund to reduce income taxes. Other countries manage to run wealth funds without corruption. If a country can't do it then, I hate to break it to you, it's definitely not the fund's fault.

> Why half of AI and not half of Walmart & Exxon & Apple?

Good question. The answer: a more broad-based wealth tax, in the form of assets which go into a sovereign wealth fund, is probably the only way to make the long-term pension math work out in developed countries. You can only tax labor so much when capital actually has the most growth.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#95

Post by triceratops »

Aunche wrote: post #52
fny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do this in Alaska's fund with great success[0] and Alaska is a deep red state. It's primarily funded by oil and gas revenue and other mineral royalties. Also thats only (at least) 25% of total revenue, the other 75% the state spends directly. Norway's oil fund is another famous example mentioned in the article.[1] [0]: https://apfc.org/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...

The oil is on Alaska/Norway's land, so they can choose what they want to do with money from selling that oil including distributing it or purchasing assets. Sanders seem to be proposing to arbitrarily seize half of the companies.

> Sanders seem to be proposing to arbitrarily seize half of the companies.

I guess it's only ok when the government arbitrarily seizes half my paycheck. If it happens to billionaires it's communism or something.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#96

Post by morbicer »

mudil wrote: post #76

"Envy was once considered to be one of the seven deadly sins before it became one of the most admired virtues under its new name, social justice." - Thomas Sowell

If we are pulling quotes out of a hat, why not some OG one?

“He who oppresses the poor taunts and insults his Maker, But he who is kind and merciful and gracious to the needy honors Him.” Proverbs 14:31

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#97

Post by triceratops »

Arubis wrote: post #4

Strictly speaking, the big A.I. companies _want_ the public to own half of them. Passively. In index ETFs in their 401(k)s and other retirement portfolios. That way the get all the money without any of the actual influence.

Sure but they want the public to pay for the privilege of owning half.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#98

Post by ai_critic »

TehCorwiz wrote: post #89
rayiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Took?” AI companies aren’t removing the information from the public domain. What happened to “information wants to be free?”

Yes. Took. As in: without permission. Didn't ask before hand, didn't provide a way to opt-out (although that would also be problematic), didn't ask for volunteers. Took.

The word you're looking for is "copied".

Don't fall for the great lie of intellectual "property".

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#99

Post by triceratops »

thewebguyd wrote: post #29
scottyah wrote: post #8

As long as they're non-voting shares, I don't see the harm. I assume not enough politicians in this senator's camp were given their early cut so this is retribution/a lesson to the abstract "Big Tech" to show that DC is still the city that rules the world.

Why non-voting shares? That kind of defeats the point of partial ownership. If the models were built using the output of all of human effort over time, then society at large should absolutely have a voice in the direction of the companies. This tech should be made for public benefit, not for purely profit and private interests. Quite frankly, most companies should be worker co-ops instead, and its long passed time we…

> Why non-voting shares? That kind of defeats the point of partial ownership.

Not really, no. Ownership gets you a share of the profits and profits can be used to reduce income taxes. I think non-voting is wise. It prevents political and partisan meddling.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#100

Post by nyeah »

Aunche wrote: post #30
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #14

Bernie Sanders. I mean, he's not always wrong, but he's, um, kind of enthusiastic about just taking stuff from those who have it, considerably more than the current understanding of private property (or even taxation) considers acceptable.

Yet progressives say that he would be "moderate" in Europe.

Why listen to US progressives' opinions about Europe? Ask Europeans.
Post reply on HN