What do you mean by google knows it is you? Is this about google fingerprinting you and giving you search results that are only for you? Or because you are signed into a google account for YouTube or gmail or something?

This is quite a take. Ownership equates to subsidies? So elon musk is the largest subsidized of space x and has absolutely 0 to gain from owning the stock? What is it that openai is gaining by giving away free stock? The only thing they are “gaining” is less control over their company and less ability to raise investment.

The gymnastic backflips I see happening in this thread are intense. A sovereign wealth fund DOES flip stocks back onto the market, that’s the whole point. Look at Norway’s ~$2 trillion sovereign wealth fund sells about 3% per year. (Similar for the Alaska permanent fund)

Assuming you mean HELOC how in the world is this anything like a HELOC? If a HELOC was the bank giving me free stocks I get to own forever and do whatever I want with I would he getting them every chance I get.

Agreed 100% we are both speculating at motives. So if we set that aside the question then becomes would it be better for institutional shareholders to have this 5% or for a wealth fund like the Alaska permanent fund to have it.

Even in a case of this being about bribing the trump admin it would result in all future administrations having access to this as well. This would require a bill in Congress to implement so I say support it and look at the bill to see if there is a way that trump or someone else can abuse it, then we can get out the pitchforks

No it doesn’t seem likely that the government would do that. The government collected more than $5 trillion last year in taxes. If the government wants to get more money they are incentivized to make the whole us economy more efficient, not prop up failing investments that would lead to the detriment of the rest of its revenue sources.

They propped up gm and chrystler because the auto industry collapsing would have sent shockwaves through the whole economy. I’m not saying I agree with what they did, but it wasn’t for a return on stocks.

The key thing here is this is funneling PRIVATE Monet into PUBLIC hands, we need more of this!

I don’t like the military industrial complex, and sure this money will help fund that technically because money is fungible. But I want to expand government programs like social security and Medicare, and I’d love for an administration that also wants to do that to have openai’s returns to fuel it.

I agree this level of scrutiny should be applied to the situation, but there is a growing sentiment of the government stepping in to take returns from AI, Bernie Sanders asked for it (where I got the 50% from) and many other countries have this exact model. Hell Alaska has this model for oil already.

It could be what openai is hoping to get out of this is only needing to give up 5% instead of a much larger number and be able to look like a good guy giving back.

I’m open to hearing what a theory is that openai is trying to bribe the government with but I’d say my explanation is more plausible than an unknown backdoor deal.

I think this is a much better argument than the bailout ones I see in this thread, but I still disagree.

If the tech bros are going to have easier jobs then the tech giants who employ them will become richer. I want the american people to see some of that enrichment that they themselves produced by generating a portion of the training data.

If ai is going to burn down the planet then the person I want on the board to help with decision making is the government. They will be a force to say no we will only use renewables, or that we have to source water sustainably, etc.

The government does not have a profit motive, if they did taxes would be maximized, and while the government’s motive isn’t exactly pure at least it is somewhat influenced by the people through democracy.

If the only alternative is ai companies doing whatever they want then this is way better. If your alternative is shut down ai companies I don’t think that’s possible, the cat is out of the bag, this genie can’t be put back in the bottle.

Stocks cannot be negative. I get the hate surrounding AI companies, but the resistance to this idea makes no sense to me.

In my opinion the number should be closer to 50% instead of 5% - but in both cases if AI companies are the biggest bubble in the world and go bankrupt then the government is left with a $0 value stock they didn’t give any money for…

If ai companies don’t go bankrupt then any returns they do generate go to the government which can be used to provide public services and offset the average Americans tax bill, thus passing any potential gains from ai to the people who generated the training data for them in the first place.

It is quite hilarious that you are so smug and judgemental about someone you claim is “just wholesale making shit up”

When you claim:

The issue is this “fundraiser” existed prior to the shooting and is not for legal defenses.

The op’s article clearly states that only funds received AFTER the shooting are not to be used according to the judge. Funds for bail do not need to be acquired specifically for legal defense, in fact him receiving funds from his fans after the shooting most likely for his legal defense is expressly WHY the judge is saying they can’t be used.

I guess I shouldn’t have given you all this valuable information unless you “asked nicely” first. Silly me.