50% might have been a fair cut if they actually asked for permission up front,but they didn’t. Everything made by AI is fruit if the poison tree and should be something equal to public domain.
If this ever passed, I bet we’d see a pretty quick devaluation in these things.
50% sounds fair
Why the hell not? AI companies wantonly stole our data after all. I seriously think that we should update Marxist theories with respect to AI and knowledge economy. The old Marxist theory on labour is becoming obsolete in the face of deindustrialisation, the boom and bust of knowledge economy, and the coming age of AI.
Funny - bis Argument is : ai is built in human collective knowledge thus wie should participate in the profits and … Give it all to americans
Dont get me wrong i like the sentiment - but seems like it comes down to - ai was built by THe collective knowledge of all humans - the profits should go to all americans
I mean however unlikely this law is to pass it would be outright impossible if the idea was to take 50% of AI profits and then somehow mail checks to every person on earth, even outside of the country doing the profit distribution
Other countries are free to do that for any LLMs developed in their own jurisdiction.
Does this mean we can do what we want to ChatGPT?
Almost everyone in this thread seems to be assuming the US would pay for half the shares/equity of these companies.
That is not what is being proposed.
What is being proposed is that the US Govt simply seize half the shares/equity/board voting powers in these companies, without paying a cent for them.
It is a half-nationalization.
Not a half-bailout.
EDIT
I go into more detail and explain in this comment in this same thread:
Nationalization doesn’t change the fact that for example OpenAI plans to burn $100B in 2026 without any profit so taxpayers will inherit $50B debt just from 2026. Moreover it doesn’t stop those companies for raising more debt from for example corporate bonds emission just by saying 50% of their capital is government owned. That would allow them to literally raise trillions.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/12/30/openais-cash-burn-will-be-one-of-the-big-bubble-questions-of-2026
https://archive.ph/8Ej9zIf OpenAI fails, and the government owns half of it…
The assets and power the government acquired for no monetary cost simply becomes zero.
The other part of simply seizing half the shares is that the government (presumably a number of ministers/officials in charge of the new sovereign wealth fund) now has half the voting power of the entire board.
That is a pretty direct way to wield influence as to the decisions the company can make, how the CEO can behave.
You want maybe the accounting to actually deprecate the GPUs they have or lease over a realistic timeframe, instead of a totally bullshit one?
Half of your shareholders now demand this.
C Suite refuse to comply?
Begin the process of firing them.
OpenAI don’t own any GPU, they lease it from Microsoft or from Oracle. Oracle bought GPU by emitting billions of dollars of corporate bonds. OpenAI only owns AI models that they copy to datacenters. Same is with Anthropics. They own no datacenter or GPU they just lease it from other parties.
Bernie Sanders is putting taxpayers responsible for overspending on datacenters and make datacenters bailout. He should propose that all models should be open to public if they are used by government organizations so it can be independently audited by researchers. That would prevent those companies to cause harm to people.
xAI is now (or will very soon be) part of SpaceX.
They physically own massive ‘Colossus’ datacenters with tons of GPUs.
As to leasing vs owning, I already addressed that.
If you are the government and you are half of the shareholders, you can pressure your own AI company, or the companies from whom your AI company leases GPUs from to be more honest and transparent regarding accounting methodologies.
Bernie is not proposing that any taxpayer money be put toward this at all.
The only actual expense here would be the minute cost of simply hiring some people to run and manage the sovereign wealth fund. Miniscule in comparison to the potential equity value of $$$s being managed. Think something like the administrative cost of running say, the SEC or FTC, in comparison to the amount of money moving around that they can affect.
He is proposing the government simply half nationalize these companies, as Trump not long ago did with TikTok.
If the government is half of every US based AI company’s board, they can also very effectively pressure them to make the models open source.
Not sure if you don’t understand the concept of nationalization, but basically, thats when the government looks at something and says ‘i own this now, because I say so’.
Theres no payment. Its… why I use the word ‘seize’.
Same way Marx argued that workers should ‘seize’ the means of production: Just take them.
Good clarification. I’m convinced we will end up bailing them out anyway. We should nationalize and operate as a public good if generative AI is that important to society.
I genuienly struggle to think of a kind of economic thing that better qualifies as a public utility.
Completely agree that this kind of technology, with such broad and immense ongoing, as well as potential implications, cannot be allowed to be directed by the whims of wealthy capitalist conmen rent seekers.
Not wrong… But also sounds a lot like communism (the people own the means of production and all that). So it might be a bit too radical for the US.
What happens when they go bust?
Maybe we all get to enjoy a massive tax write off like a big business
But the government will actually own it, not you and me. So the government will write of its taxes to itself?
I have no idea lol
Does this mean we’ll all be bag holders when the AI bubble bursts?
We are already holding the bag.
They are “too big to fail”
It is the de way
They’re very much not. They have high valuations, but very few employees. Very different to the banks (where the public would lose money) and the car firms (who employed large numbers of workers)
Guess where the publics money is invested?
Pensions and other investments, yes.
Not current accounts which was what was at risk in 2008. When the bank goes bust you don’t just lose money. You become unable to do anything financial, like get paid.
We didn’t just bail the banks in 2008.
Now do the US Auto Makers.
Who are still making terrible decisions
Read the thread. Already did that.
How? The government doesn’t plan to compensate the companies.
The point being, if the public owns half of the company but the company is failing, now the public has acquired 50% liability of a dying business.
Like others said though, I’m sure taxpayers will be on the hook either way.
They already are! The government signed exclusive military contracts with OpenAI to develop autonomous weapons. Half of these AI companies are being propped up with taxpayer dollars in the form of government contracts or subsidies, or the promise that there will be a taxpayer revenue stream coming their way in the near future.
Are you new here? The government will absolutely compensate the companies when the bubble bursts.
Wouldn’t this make everyone interested in the bad business practices that would increase the profits?
More likely in would just exarcerbate the financial instability of the AI industry and hasten its downfall, which I’m all for
Or delay it. How would the government having 50% stake in an industry make it less stable? Now the government will form policy around protecting its stake. This will delay a collapse that we should want to happen sooner than later, and ideally be as divested from as possible.
It makes sure that the public benefits from mass automation.
Government. We are not the government.
https://cdn.mises.org/anatomy-of-the-state.pdf
It’s a very short book. And it’s covered pretty convincingly in the first chapter no less.
50% too low.
You know they will agree and give everyone stakes exactly when bubble is about to pop
You didn’t read the article, or you didn’t understand it.
The US Govt would not pay a cent for the shares of these companies.
It would simply seize them, half-nationalize them.
Its a half nationalization, not a half bailout.
Public stake isn’t for profits (especially not short term capital gains), it’s about concentration & not getting controlled.
Controlling something worthless is pointless anyway.
And giving it away to everyone will score political points.
Wdym away to everyone?
It would be a good idea if the entirety of the current industry for it wasn’t built entirely on smoke and mirrors type promises.
The general idea (so far as I can parse) is that if these companies are expecting a government bailout when it all goes south, then the tax payers who would be bailing them out should get paid back. But in practice, what will happen is we’ll be saddled with the debt and these companies will weasel out of it.
The fact is I don’t want to own a stake in any of these companies. I would rather they make it illegal for these companies to ask for a bailout from the government and close loopholes they will use to file for bankruptcy.
If they’re going to fail the government should buy their assets (data centers, infrastructure, etc) if the people agree that’s okay. Instead of what will likely happen (the companies left standing when it all goes under will buy up all the assets dirt cheap).
Idk I support bankruptcy for them, but I think it’s valuable to give mutual funds and pensions priority in restitution. Venture capital got themselves into this mess through irresponsible investment.
Not the right move dawg
