87
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] FatVegan@leminal.space 1 points 2 days ago

They destroy the whole planet, but now you too can make a buck. That's as american as school shootings

[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 21 points 4 days ago

Fuck that, just tax them appropriately and enforce laws on them. Tax them enough to cover the damage they are doing.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago

50% of a failing industry is a liability, not an investment.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It's not a liability if it's given to you.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago

here's how that will work.

US taxpayers own 50% of the industry. it fails. now taxpayers are responsible for bailing out the industry.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

If you read the article instead of making a knee jerk assumption, you’d know that taxpayers would not be purchasing 50% of the industry.

The proposal is for AI companies to pay a one-time tax. In stock. Which would go into a public sovereign wealth fund. If the companies succeed, the public benefits. If they fail, the public-owned shares lose value.

That does not magically make taxpayers responsible for bailing them out. Owning equity is not the same thing as guaranteeing a company’s survival.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago

tell me. what happens when an individual owns 50% of the shares of a company?

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They get voting power and upside.

They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out.

If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash.

Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you've read the article at all.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

we both know that's not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn't even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out.

but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it's taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to "protect the economy".

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This is not making you sound smarter, my guy...

The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...?

Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares.

The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk.

It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank.

You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one.

Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school.

[-] brownsugga@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

I don't trust a "sovereign wealth fund" of any kind in the US because look who the fuck is in office. It could be run by generations of faithful public stewards and then one day the antithesis of all that is good and faithful gets into office and loots the FUCK out of it.

No- it would have to be a direct dividend like oil money in Alaska; and I'd argue it should be closer to 75% of AI companies but that's just me. Either way, a direct to taxpayer (not every person every TAXPAYER; if you want to be a fucker about it every citizen that pays taxes) dividend would be way way better than some kind of AI "wealth fund" that wall st or k street will find some way to pillage sooner rather than later

[-] mimavox@piefed.social 6 points 4 days ago

Yep. The idea is good under normal circumstances*.* Today it's so far from normal you can possibly imagine.

[-] SGforce@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

Can we short them by 50% instead?

[-] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 8 points 4 days ago

50% of zero is still zero.

[-] certified_expert@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Nop. Bad idea, sir

this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
87 points (95.8% liked)

AI - Artificial intelligence

285 readers
3 users here now

AI related news and articles.

Rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS