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

211–220 of 290 posts

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

#211

Post by sobellian »

pbasista wrote: post #204
fourseventy wrote: post #138

Bernie is a full on communist at this point. Seizing the assets of private companies for the government? WTF.

> full on communist Please do not use the term communist lightly, i.e. as an umbrella term for people who express ideas that e.g. more government control or regulation is in some circumstances reasonable. The only forms of communism that have ever actually materialized in society have all been authoritarian regimes or outright dictatorships. Where the only "truth" is dictated by the governing leader or party. Where y…

He's advocating for the government seizing ownership of the means of production without compensation. That sounds pretty communist to me.

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

#213

Post by akramachamarei »

jmyeet wrote: post #131
rayiner wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t have to be Jeff Bezos to believe you’re better off in the long run with strong property rights. To your example: I’ve got 10 gig fiber from a private company. My alternatives are 2 gig fiber from a private company, or 2 gig cable from a private company. I don’t have to be Jeff Bezos to wager that, if the people who ran Baltimore City Public Schools ran my broadband service, I wouldn’t have even 1 gig servic…

The "brutal communism of China" is just hilarious on its face. It's like a Freedom House type position [1]. Funded by the State Department btw. I'm sure it's unbiased. Surveys of Chinese citizens show very high levels of satisfaction with their government [2] while Chinese people view the West through the "kill line" [3]. The funny part about that is the NYT blaming the kill line on "state media" [4] when it originat…

> liting [sic] ~800M people out of extreme poverty. What has the West done in that time?

Well, producing the demand for those manufacturing jobs, for one thing.

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

#214

Post by 3ffss »

nradov wrote: post #197
unethical_ban wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems obvious to me that AI will drastically reshape creative industries, and greatly lower the headcount required for analytical and programming industries, in the long term. The scope of its impact on the economy is likely greater than the Internet, social media, and the telephone. Furthermore, AI companies and consulting companies themselves are selling this idea that it will completely reshape employment. I fi…

There is essentially infinite demand for software. Every time new technologies have made it cheaper to build software we've ended up with more new software, and more people employed in software development. There's no reason to expect that LLMs will change that historical pattern. We'll just be using higher level tools. But most of the people creating digital media like animation, graphic art, and special effects are…

[flagged]

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

#215

Post by csallen »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #205
csallen wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This chain has been using expropriate, not extract. Not sure why you mentioned that. Sure, my bad. > They stole copyrighted work without permission. While we're nitpicking language, you can't "steal" copyrighted work. Theft/stealing are crimes that apply to situation where property is taken such that its rightful owner no longer has it. Copyright has nothing to do with theft. There is no taking of property involved…

If your product has no value without access by your company/you agents of someone elses work, you are a derivative work. The value of your product has at least in part been derived from other's copyrighted work. The fact that these companies don't just remove copyrighted work from their product creation chain shows that they feel they are deriving value from the copyrighted works that they wouldn't have if they didn'…

"Deriving value" from what came before doesn't mean that what came before is owed some sort of check. And thank god, or the world would be a horrible place full of rent seekers.

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

#216

Post by nradov »

3ffss wrote: post #214
nradov wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is essentially infinite demand for software. Every time new technologies have made it cheaper to build software we've ended up with more new software, and more people employed in software development. There's no reason to expect that LLMs will change that historical pattern. We'll just be using higher level tools. But most of the people creating digital media like animation, graphic art, and special effects are…

[flagged]

Don't be pedantic. There may be resource limits but we're so far away from them that they're irrelevant: that's why software demand is essentially infinite for all practical purposes.

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

#217

Post by chasd00 »

Instead of "The Public.." read it as "The Government Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies" because that's what it really means. It doesn't sound all that great now does it? Imagine what a red/blue administration would do with complete control of those AI capabilities.

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

#218

Post by jmyeet »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #69
fny wrote: post #22

> A.I. is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations I know many here would scoff at nationalizing a private company, but AI is a usurpation of human knowledge and quite literally at times. (Every AI company was embroiled in copyright lawsuits and lord knows what Qwen et al are up to.) In…

I would rather we have an alternative where you can buy Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX, etc stock but it has a few strict requirements: * Investors are committing to keeping their money over a 10 year period, and you pay them dividends * At the end of the 10 years you can withdraw it all, or keep your stock but withdraw the dividends, or keep your stock and reinvest the dividends for the next 10 years. * Companies cannot…

How is this not just a "rich gets richer" scenario? What of the majority of the population that don't have excess funds to invest?

The funny thing about AI is that the LLMs were trained by stomping on private property rights, being the intellectual rights holders of songs, books, movies, etc plus the troves of user-generated content, something for which they see no benefit.

Why are private property rights so important for AI companies but the private property rights of the training data aren't important at all?

I can tell you why: people on HN aren't authors or musicians. They are however software engineers who see themselves as profiting from the AI bubble.

Put another way: it's not that they care about private property rights. They simply think they can get rich enough so the problems won't apply to them.

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

#220

Post by 3ffss »

nradov wrote: post #216
3ffss wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Don't be pedantic. There may be resource limits but we're so far away from them that they're irrelevant: that's why software demand is essentially infinite for all practical purposes.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN