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

251–260 of 290 posts

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

#251

Post by customguy »

nradov wrote: post #49
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…

Labor displacement is always coming. Every new technology eliminates some old occupations and creates new ones. LLMs aren't unique in that regard. We should have a safety net to support and retrain displaced workers regardless of the technology. And let's please not have any lazy, low-effort replies claiming that AI will somehow magically eliminate all jobs for humans.

> Every new technology eliminates some old occupations and creates new ones [..] And let's please not have any lazy, low-effort replies

Yeah, a lazy, low-effort claim such as this doesn't really require replies, it can just fail to stand on its own.

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

#253

Post by csallen »

mrdependable wrote: post #242
csallen wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is literally the granting of monopolies. That's the whole point of it. Copyright benefits huge corporations way more than "the little guy." The biggest holders of copyrights and patents are huge corporations, many of which are often bought explicitly for the purpose of warding off competition from new upstarts. These huge companies (e.g. Disney) also use their massive war chests to lobby the government into…

You say means of production is an antiquated idea, but the world you are using as an example of the idea being unnecessary is a world where copyright exists. The world would look very different otherwise, and you can actually get a sneak peek of what would happen by looking at AI companies. These are not people using ingenuity to capture value that no else bothered to. They are owners of massive capital training for…

> * training for free on everyone's work*

"Training on other people's work" has always been free for anyone to do for the entire history of humanity, and that shouldn't change. You do not get paid just because somebody read your work and learned from it, nor should you, unless you want to gatekeep it and charge for access.

As Jefferson said, "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

> …to not only capture their value in ways the little guy can't…

So what? Big companies can do things that little companies can't. That's always been true and always will be true. What does this have to do with copyright?

> …but to replace them outright

Computers replaced jobs. Cars replaced jobs. AI is replacing jobs. Etc. So what? What does this have to do with copyright?

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

#254

Post by gettingoverit »

sobellian wrote: post #79

Taking 50% of a few valuable companies for no compensation is just expropriation. Not that this has political legs, but even if it did, expect an enormous fight. The more obviously legal (and stupendously expensive) route would be eminent domain.

Shouldn't be a problem, as AI companies expropriated knowledge and jobs.

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

#255

Post by milch »

triceratops wrote: post #144
fourseventy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about income tax or capital gains tax, it's about the government seizing half of a privately owned company.

In both cases the government takes half of something that belongs to an individual. Does it matter if it's cash or stock?

In fact when my company awards me stock the government takes half anyway!

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

#256

Post by solatic »

triceratops wrote: post #137
solatic wrote: post #115

The public should own more than half. Via the stock market. Where public shareholders can vote in elections to control the Board of Directors, and elect Directors that act in the fiduciary interests of shareholders, and return excess capital to shareholders by issuing dividends. Where any member of the public can decide to buy or sell shares, being the most important development in the democratization of wealth devel…

The public doesn't have that much money.

Then perhaps the big AI companies aren't actually worth that much.

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

#257

Post by gettingoverit »

sobellian wrote: post #211
pbasista wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Do you propose taxpayers to shoulder compensations to AI companies that robbed them of data and jobs? I guess not being absurd is communist now :)

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

#259

Post by solatic »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #145
solatic wrote: post #115

The public should own more than half. Via the stock market. Where public shareholders can vote in elections to control the Board of Directors, and elect Directors that act in the fiduciary interests of shareholders, and return excess capital to shareholders by issuing dividends. Where any member of the public can decide to buy or sell shares, being the most important development in the democratization of wealth devel…

This comment really drives home the effective propaganda of “publicly owned” as a term. Concentrated ownership of the wealthy is not synonymous with “the public.” You are very literally arguing for plutocracy over democracy.

> Concentrated ownership of the wealthy is not synonymous with “the public.”

I 100% agree. It's terrible that large private companies like Cargill and any others large enough to make this list: https://www.forbes.com/lists/top-private-companies/ are allowed to continue operating without being forced to list on stock markets and being subject to public reporting requirements. There's a very big difference between concentrated ownership by the wealthy and public ownership.

> You are very literally arguing for plutocracy over democracy

You can only assume that public markets results in plutocracy if individual investors hold outsize amounts of outstanding shares. The elections for Boards of Directors are not competitive when an individual shareholder holds majority voting power. There is a separate argument for a wealth tax that I agree with, and there are arguments to be made for maximum share prices (reaching the maximum triggers an automatic stock split) to guarantee financial accessibility (cough, BRK.A, cough).

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

#260

Post by orangecoffee »

yowo wrote: post #238

Better idea, mandate 4 days work week and 30 days PTO, the labor squeeze such law would cause will bring wages up and offsets AI productivity boost impact and pays people back in lifetime.

This could have a shot if we also recommend to companies that, they should convert overall pay to ~2/3 for employees, and with the 1/3 extra hire more people. so every company that opts in has no higher people budget, but generates more employment.

This only requires that everyone take a pay cut to help their peer citizens. I would sign up for this. But would the majority - would you? yes/no - and why?

Post reply on HN