31–40 of 158 posts
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…
> Altman has also reportedly spoken with the Democratic senator Bernie Sanders in recent weeks. The senator has been pushing for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund overseen by an independent commission and financed through a one-time 50% tax on the stock of the biggest AI companies. Bernie shooting for the moon here
I can't see Google or Meta shareholders agreeing to this? That said, Google, Meta, and SpaceX are all still founder-controlled using supervoting shares.
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…
I assume that’s why Altman wants the government as a co-owner.
It’s something entirely different when the government starts taking a stake in individual companies instead of the market as a whole. This can easily bias the government to pick OpenAI for certain contracts, or enact laws that benefit OpenAI more than its competitors. It reduces competition which hurts the overall economy, and it is an obvious vector for corruption which hurts the efficiency of the government.
It’s great if we can leverage AI to design the next great government system. A 5% stake feels more like a bribe to help push through some of these datacenter projects and enact friendly laws.
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…
I know OpenAI has delayed their IPO by a year (i.e. not publicly traded, yet; so: no dividends), but wouldn't it be better for the Government/bottom 95% if instead of taking ownership, they taxed all tech-related stocks 5% every time they're traded – this is a perpetual stream of income, and would likely reduce speculative short-term trading... source: middle-aged electrician, owns a little stock (and would happily p…
Feel free to send a 5% donation to the government in your taxes every time you trade your tech stocks.
Isn't this what people wanted? The public to have access to the gains of these companies? I don't want public ownership of any private companies but this seems to be what slopulism leads us to