I forget how pro state people are on here sometimes. Is no one concerned what the fascist government will do with that stake?
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
1010 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
85168 readers
3897 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
americans arent being honest with themselves about how bad the state of their nation is in.
But our amazing big brother is gonna take care of us all! They only want what's best for billionaires! I mean Russia! Crap no best for America! That's the word!
ai doesn't make money so this is a bailout for a piece of junk. the amount of people here that think this will work out is fuckin incredible.
Nothing in the legislation reads as a bailout, the government would unilaterally take 50% stake and the associated voting power. The American public is no worse off if it doesn't turn a profit or gets liquidated.
The bailout would happen when the conservative vultures circle. "We can't let them fail, that would devalue the American portfolio (never mind that this bailout is 2x any value that could ever be gained back)"
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:
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.
Yeah that’s what I read here, acquisition not share purchase.
As someone who has never used AI, another thing that springs to mind; the possibility that under good governance and regulation, AI services might become more trusted and perform better.
I’m trying to find flaw with this proposal, given what’s in front of us with AI, as someone who doesn’t know a lot about using it but sees everyday the problems bad regulation and intention causes with it.
Well.....
Very broadly speaking, yes, having a much more direct regulation of how you can use 'AI', and how you can 'generate' it, for lack of a better term...
Yeah. AI isn't totally useless. It can do a lot of very neat and useful things.
But, if used improperly, it can literally destroy the world's software systems.
Just in the last 24-48 hours, Meta put an AI in charge of its customer support for Instagram.
People figured out that you can just use a VPN to set your IP to the approximate location of any Instagram account, tell it 'oh i lost my email, heres my new one, can you send me a password reset email?'... and it would just do it.
The AI got wired in to the backend of Instagram's security systems... and then used them to bypass them, because it wss asked to, nicely.
You'd have to have actual experts, not in AI, but in software engineering, systems architecture, experienced full stack senior devs, make up like a council of mandatory safety practices, things that LLMs should never be allowed to be plugged in to.
The... original idea of like a decade ago, was that the people developing this ... would do that, they'd self regulate.
Then they decided they'd rather be trillionaires.
And also, a whole lot of people are the boat you're in, not understanding much about AI... but they're also delusional narcissists who are highly susceptibls to being upsold by people they view as more successful than them.
So those people just hear 'Use AI or be left behind!' and then layoff half the company to afford some kind of not even half baked AI implementation... and the latest numbers are something like 90-95% of firms that adopted AI in the last 12 or 18 months saw 0 or negative overall productivity gain.
... because this shit is not actually magic.
So yeah, yeah, formal regulation, at a very direct snd engaged level... I mean like AI can easily do more monetary damage than a nuclear warhead going off in a major city, if used improperly, by dumb hairless monkeys that want an easy button instead of any actual work associated with running anything.
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/8Ej9z
If 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.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
Tax the tokens
Every country
Every token
100% AI Tax
Better idea: drive a stake 50% through AI CEO's chest. Better, faster results, not just economically, but ecologically too!
I agree! Just blow the brains out of the tech broligarch chud billionaires!
load more comments
(8 replies)
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
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
First of all, fuck no. Remove all of the AI companies. Now. Secondly, this will guarantee they become "too big to fail". Like, it feels as if they're purposefully doing this to make it palatable to bail them out.
I think the intention is to get the profits of automation to the people when more jobs are inevitably automated.
It is, but unintended consequences.
With this, then we couldn't afford Sam Altman to experience failure because he will drag folks down with him. So the companies invested become too big to fall, and the still private leadership gets to run things however they wish knowing the government will cover for any mistakes.
It's bad enough as the government will panic about retirement accounts when they falter, this exacerbates it.
It's a risky form of private-public partnership, with a lot of ways the company can privatize rewards but socialize the risk.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
50% seems very low. They created these companies by scraping and pirating information.
50% means that they just need to fool a few people to get what they want. Imo it should be more like 90% public with a requirement that all services must be provided for free.
check my math:
0.5 x 0 = 0
Keep your eye on the ball: 100% of the profits must pay for universal healthcare.
I love this idea, but I’m not sure if any AI company has made any profit to date lmao
No AI company will ever make a profit.
That’s no excuse for you to forget that human rights is our ultimate goal.
Never take your eye off the ball. Vote for humans. Fight for human equality. 🏳️🌈
load more comments
(14 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
You know they will agree and give everyone stakes exactly when bubble is about to pop
load more comments
(4 replies)
Just ban running them on a loss. Maybe even ban running anything at a loss in order to curb competition, etc.
Kurt Vonnegut's "Player piano" nailed it in 1952:
Automation makes factories more efficient, tax that efficiency and give it back to the displaced workers.
Of course, since then, we've been doing nothing but lowering corporate taxes...
load more comments
(3 replies)
I think that’s a traditional part of anti-monopoly laws, shame nobody enforces those anymore
Anti-monopoly laws have been problematic to enforce since their inception, because their targets are often as powerful as the government that might dare to regulate them.
When I found out what it meant when other countries have sovereign wealth funds...
I have no idea how most people in America keep convincing themselves they've somehow got a good deal.
It's mostly oil countries that have a sovereign wealth fund and it comes out of the oil money. Norway, Saudi Arabia. Idea being that oil is a limited resource with a lot of value and the proceeds should be used to ensure everyone's future.
Of course the US IS an oil country...
To give the government a 50% stake. I know the government is the public in some sense, but still.
If this ever passed, I bet we’d see a pretty quick devaluation in these things.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I see plenty of objections, many from people who probably know much more about AI and US law than myself, but if what I interpret is accurate I’m trying to find flaw with it, given what’s confronting us with AI and its management.
I don’t see anywhere where the US government would be buying or bailing anything out, at least not upfront anyway. There’s no doubt to me these companies have stolen much, so they owe the public back for that. There’s no doubt to me those that run these systems aren't working in the US public’s interest, so the question of whether regulating or offering public protections should happen isn’t hard for me. That of course implies good governance, not what currently exists, which is a problem.
As I said I might be missing a lot, not being American or an AI user, but yeah aside from who is in charge currently I only see benefit here.
As I said I might be missing a lot, not being American or an AI user, but yeah aside from who is in charge currently I only see benefit here.
It hurts the profit margins by benefitting the public, so it will fail. A snowball has a better chance in Hell than this bill has to pass.
That one I didn’t miss, I left it out. I can’t argue with it.
I wonder if this is some sneaky way to make sure they aren’t bailed out by the public when the crash happens. The companies will revolt against this. And then when they coming running for a bailout we can just say “well you didn’t want to be publicly owned”
Wouldn’t this make everyone interested in the bad business practices that would increase the profits?
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›