Bernie Sanders proposes bill to give the public a 50% stake in AI companies

https://mashable.com/tech/bernie-sanders-nyt-op-ed-pubic-ai-ownership-argument

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/47646413

191 points · 34 comments · view on lemmy.world

34 Comments

AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 33 pts · 64d (10 replies)

They're unprofitable. This is just socializing losses

kibblebits@quokk.au · 5 pts · 64d

Welcome to America!

lennybird@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 63d (2 replies)

Profit isn't the goal with nationalized sectors in fairness; nor should one want that (obvious example being single payer universal Healthcare). The question is whether or not these systems can be regulated and in the public eye, if they have a benefit to society. Which realistically, the genie is never going back in the bottle on this. Much like the internet itself, pros and cons.

AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 56d

You're not incorrect, but you missed my point entirely.

AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 59d

Investors have already lost gobs of money. This industry is unprofitable.

Having the government buy half of it rescues them a bit and burdens the public with this boondoggle tech

ryannathans@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 63d (5 replies)

Shareholders don't pay out of pocket for losses

AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 56d (4 replies)
  1. AI companies at present are all privately held. There are no shareholders
  2. My point is that this move lets these reckless and wasteful companies off the hook for their behavior
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 56d (3 replies)

Read the OP... It's effectively talking about making everyone a shareholder

AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 56d (2 replies)

OK how does my point get negated?

AI will never be profitable. It costs too much. This will just socialize all the losses

ryannathans@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 56d (1 reply)

Shareholders don't pay out of pocket for losses

AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 55d

It'snot aabout paying out of pocket for losses. It's about badly run companies getting bailed out by a public investment scheme

SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org · 22 pts · 64d

The only stake I want is the one to kill those billionaire Nosferatus.

dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net · 17 pts · 64d (1 reply)

I don’t want 50% of your “spewing raw sewage into people’s houses” business, I want that business to go away.

kibblebits@quokk.au · 3 pts · 64d

I thought that was Tesla’s battery factory.

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 64d (6 replies)

How about we just tax their profits at 50%?

in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social · 25 pts · 64d (1 reply)

100% there are no profits, they produce nothing.

dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 64d

Agree. Tax their revenues, and mark any infusions of cash as revenue.

ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 64d

How about we simply get rid of billionaires?

Lodespawn@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 64d

Tax their revenue, they aren't making profits

ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 63d

Companies will always spend away profits to a neg zero. A company doesn't care if it's rich. A profit tax will just evaporate into random R&D projects they spun up in the final quarter.

SippyCup@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 64d

Tax them at 1000% it won't make a difference.

The tax is applied to net, not gross profits. And wouldn't you know it? No business ever makes any money.

mrmaplebar@fedia.io · 7 pts · 64d

Why would I want a to hold the bag by taking 50% stake in an overvalued bullshit company whose only IP is a trove of stolen data that they are using to exploit the working and creative classes?

Make no mistake, this AI shit is a bubble. The bubble of all bubbles perhaps.

MoogleMaestro@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 64d (1 reply)

I don't think we want 50% stake, where things are going. This sounds like we'll end up bailing them out one way or another...

Pat_Riot@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 64d

Oh, we'll likely do that anyway

nightwatch_admin@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 63d

This genai garbage should be burned to the ground, not validated.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 64d

If it doesn’t mean we work less I don’t care.

Seaguy05@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 64d

Could you imagine a country where everyone financially profits off the destruction of our shared society? Our water, forests, oceans, infrastructure, and much more just to get a buck. The critical thinkers see the backwards thought process behind the long term results of this I would guess. If this were to go the way tech wants, best case scenario we cover some ubi but the cost is everything we hold dear.

Or maybe somewhere in the middle where we as shareholders get to decide how these companies are run... But as we've all noticed by now... We as a collective society can't be trusted with these types of decisions.

But you know Sam also can't be trusted with both the power and money so what's the best option to address this issue.

ynthrepic@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 64d

And risk the liability when the AI bubble bursts? Microsoft trying to charge customers the actual costs of CoPilot are not going well.

AI companies need to pay for their emissions, subsidize power costs in communities affected by data cents, and just generally be made to shoulder the true costs of what they're doing. When they pass this on to customers usage will plummet.

KiwiTB@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 64d (1 reply)

Bernie is wrong here.

ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml · -5 pts · 64d

He's sheep dogging disenfranchised voters back into the party. That's what sheep dogs do take commands from their handlers.

in_my_honest_opinion@piefed.social · 4 pts · 64d

Half as much as we deserve. Nationalize the fuckers, they're pushing the IPO so they can fleece retail investors and then when the "market correction" (pump and dump) is over they're going to try to get a bailout like the Banks did after 2008.

WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 64d (1 reply)

Yeah, I love Bernie and hate to lose him, but if he's at all serious about this then I'm afraid he's already gone.

ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml · -6 pts · 64d

Bernie's been gone for about 15 years.

underThunder@thelemmy.club · -2 pts · 64d (1 reply)
[ removed ]
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 64d

Hardly. It costs more to run so-called AI (just seriously overbaked pattern matching, really) than it'll ever make. The C-Suites are just going as hard as they can, hoping before they're out of runway that they'll be lucky enough to have the right subordinates to save their asses by stumbling across a way to make that not be true. In the meantime they're skimming enough off the top to set themselves up for life while completely bleeding the rest of the company dry.