11 Comments
User's avatar
Tarrik Zaid's avatar

Shrub and Chamath agreeing…We have crossed the event horizon

Gingerbread man's avatar

On the topic of gov investment.

If we believe AI can (1) lead to mass unemployment due to replacing human labor, and (2) have a military impact like the Manhattan project.

Why doesn't it make sense for the gov to have some ownership?

Majority ownership is probably not the right way. But some decent percent to ensure the public has some say + can profit in the long run. Why not?

Not the best example, but Israeli Refael is gov owned and not publicly traded.

Israeli gov has stake in other defense companies too.

Chris Rolland's avatar

The government already has a stake in every company, directly it’s called corporate income taxes and indirectly, income taxes and payroll taxes

Gingerbread man's avatar

I get the analogy. But it's very far from being the same.

100% corporate income taxes is not the same as 100% ownership stake.

Chris Rolland's avatar

Through taxes, the government doesn’t care who wins, but directly benefits from the success of the ai sector. Ownership means the gov is picking winners and losers. We are on a dangerous path towards socialism and it’s mindblowing how “conservatives” have embraced it.

Ian's avatar

Appreciate the warning Shrubma :-)

And I never thought I'd agree with Scamath but hey we live in an upside down world!

Panem's avatar

The amount of pro socialism “but, but, but…” comments here is staggering.

Thomas Hein's avatar

I would be less concerned about Sanders and more about Trump, Vance and Hegseth and their oligarchs. They totally ruined the reputation of the USA and they are about to deconstruct democracy and freedom in the USA. They need to be taken out not matter how.

Good kid's avatar

@Shrub you would like Bittensor I think. Not 0DTE, but in the spirit of what you laid out here in the piece. Worth looking into and who knows, you may find it attractive in terms valuation if you note where it sits today and zoom out. Hint: VAL