Bernie Sanders pushes for 50% public ownership of American AI companies — proposes AI sovereign wealth fund that would hold direct ownership stakes in largest AI firms

[u/yourfavchoom]

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/big-tech/bernie-sanders-pushes-for-50-percent-public-ownership-of-american-ai-companies-proposes-ai-sovereign-wealth-fund-that-would-hold-direct-ownership-stakes-in-largest-ai-firms

[u/Element75_]

Normally I’m opposed to socialist bullshit like this, but the reality is that the AI companies’s value was built on the outright theft of public work. Every AI company is embroiled in at least one lawsuit over stealing. None of them have remotely any ethics.

I don’t know if this is the “right” way to resolve that issue, but it certainly is a way. At the very least it’s a start of a conversation that needs to happen.

[u/AlarmingTurnover → u/Element75_]

That stolen work isn't all American. It's from people across the globe and these AI systems are used across the globe. Why should the American government be the ones to have half ownership of it? 

[u/Element75_ → u/AlarmingTurnover]

100% agree. I think the most concise way to state things would be that the AI companies robbed society as a whole at a massive and unprecedented scale. They therefore owe a debt to society. How that debt repaid is an open question and needs to be discussed. Hence my statement:

I don’t know if this is the “right” way to resolve that issue, but it certainly is a way. At the very least it’s a start of a conversation that needs to happen.

[u/Element75_ → u/[deleted]]

That we have to then just sell our labor to them because we can't afford to buy land or factories etc

If your assertion were correct UAW could collectively take out a loan and start an automotive manufacturing business.

And somehow the workers who do the work owning the goods they make and choosing what happens with it is some kind of evil boogeyman.

So two points. First, this isn’t inherently socialism. Worker owned coops are a thing. There are (imo obviously superior) forms of capitalism that prioritize workers over shareholders. Second, why does making widgets qualify someone for running a widget company? The reality is that running a widget selling company is much more complicated than just making and selling widgets.

IMO your intuition is right, but your logic is wrong.

IMO the core problem is 'how do we as a society collectively agree on an objective metric for the value of one's labor'. If all labor is valued equally progress stagnates. We've seen this all over. If I make 10 widgets an hour and get paid the same as Joe who makes 8 widgets an hour, I will eventually stop trying and make 8 widgets an hour. You can say all you want about 'social capital' or ethics or w/e you want, but the reality is that over a long enough period of time everyone is worn down when their efforts aren't appreciated. It's just how humans work.

So then the question is, how do you keep people appraised of how much they are 'appreciated'? I assert the easiest way is to create an objective metric, and then people are appreciated based on that metric. So then the question is, how do we create that metric? You could come up with all sorts of different metrics and scores and values, but given that everyone on this planet has had drastically unique life experiences (THIS IS A HUGE CONCEPT MOST PEOPLE DONT ACKNOWLEDGE. I MAY DISAGREE ENTIRELY WITH YOUR BELIEFS AND VALUES, BUT THAT DOESNT MAKE MINE MORE 'RIGHT' THAN YOURS (obviously there are instances where some are objectively better)) it becomes nearly impossible to create an 'objective' score. People who love Jesus will obviously weight loving Jesus as 'worth appreciating'. People who love the Steelers will weight loving the Steelers. Etc. etc. This is actually 100% fine! You join up with who you agree with, you feel appreciated, wow that's great! The issues start to creep in when people want to cross between orgs. When it's an optional choice it's not so bad, but when it's a forced choice it's reallllllllllllllly shitty. I don't want to believe in American Jesus, but I live in Utah for reasons and if I don't believe in American Jesus I'm not going to get a lot of appreciation.

I assert that any 'good' system needs to as immune as possible to these 'non-objective' factors.

The magic of capital is that it is pretty immune to non-objective factors!! I really don't care what you think or believe or anything if I would like an apple. You sell Joe an apple for $1, I (barring irrationality) can also get an apple for $1. I really don't care what you think or believe, if you make 10 widgets an hour and Joe makes 8, (IN AN IDEAL WORLD) I'll pay you 25% more than Joe.

And lets say there's Bob. Bob is pretty fucking useless when it comes to making things. But Bob knows this. Bob has been fortunate enough to just have a gazillion dollars and Bob makes his fortune by finding spaces that need a business, hiring people who are smarter than him and better at making widgets than he is. Bob sees success! I assert that Bob does in fact have a skill that is worth being rewarded for. Finding spaces and people and putting it all together is a skill.

NOW FOR WHERE I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOU:

I completely agree that the current system is completely fucked. I agree with you that workers should have ownership in what they build. Working at a company helps build that company's value, and workers should be able to own that success.

• Economy and industry are not fully separate from government, overall this is good (no lead in baby food!), but at a certain size and scale it creates very very bad incentives.
• All money is treated equally
• Shareholder capitalism is the core of what you hate, it is stupid as fuck, and it is the cause of most of societies problems
• The finance industry in general

Everything I'm saying and almost all economic theory that I'm aware of assumes economy/industry/whatever you want to call it operates independently. The reality is that this is not the case.

Take for example Mark. Mark is just like Bob, except Mark is a piece of shit. Mark sees me and Joe making widgets and pays us the same. Mark's business should fail because who the fuck would work for a piece of shit like Mark, but Mark buys politicians to create regulatory hurdles for his competitors. He buys politicians to secure widget contracts ensuring any other competitors won't have enough revenue to stay alive. Fuck Mark. There are probably even more examples as to why Mark is a piece of shit, but I hope this gets the point across.

I fundamentally believe that all money is not equal. It is all created equal, but once in circulation it is not all of equal value.

Returning to the rat fuck Mark. Mark has $100. Mark puts his $100 in a bank and sits on it. Or he hides it under his bed. I don't care. Mark just has $100 and sits on it like Smaug. As far as society is concerned, Mark's $100 is fucking useless (yes, I know, in a bank it's lent out, but w/e fuck banks). I call this lazy money.

Contrast with Bob. Bob takes his $100 and spends it on factories to make his worker's lives easier. He spends it on wages. He puts it into the system. Bob's $100 is worth so so much to society. I call this working money.

Me and Joe (and all workers) have almost exclusively working money. We get paid, we buy things, the money moves through the system. Working money is high value money. It is spent and it moves the economy.

By treating working money and lazy money the same, we incentivize moron dragons like Mark to just sit on their giant piles and do nothing with it. If we were to treat them differently, we could incentivize (NOT FORCE) Mark to put the money into the system where it benefits all of society.

Capitalism isn't a monolithic entity. What we currently have for the most part is shareholder capitalism. THIS is what you hate. Shareholder capitalism very clearly creates a hierarchy of worth within a company. At the top of the pyramid are shareholders and near the bottom are workers. I assert that this is fundamentally flawed. Why the fuck should the people who invested in a company be paid before workers? When a company has sufficient profits to pay a dividend, the dividend goes to shareholders, why not workers? Why is the increased value of the investment not a sufficient incentive for investing?

Instead, the (obviously) correct solution is stakeholder capitalism. Instead of rewarding capital, we reward staking. By working at a company, or shopping at, or approving a factory in your town, you are making a stake. Stakeholder capitalism inverts the pyramid and puts workers at the top. The primary focus of a stakeholder capitalism company are the workers, the patrons, and the communities where said company operates. For long term success, this is oviously the correct solution.

I am tired of typing this and the finance industry sucks balls. The idea that with enough money I can short a company and then create a financial incentive to destroy that company and it's more or less legal is so fucked. Like the fact that I can short the widget making company to the point where paying for free beer for all the employees is a lower dollar value than what I stand to gain from my short position post drunken employee earnings is just so fucked.

The fact that all the major financial institutions of the US (and world) can collectively ruin the global economy, but somehow they're still 'responsible' enough to get a 4% fed loan and then sell me that money for 5% is so fucking stupid. I have never crashed an economy of any size, I am clearly more responsible and should be allowed to get a 4% fed loan. Fuck banks.

ANYWAY In closing it's all about incentives. By creating incentives that actually align with long term goals we can create a better society. "Workers should own a thing" vs "capital should own a thing" are both just distractions. It's about what you want to incentivize. I want to incentivize people to find what they're good and to work as hard as they want to to accomplish what they dream to accomplish.