Trump AI Czar Says 'No Federal Bailout For AI' After OpenAI CFO's Comments (cnbc.com)
- Reference: 0179986436
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/11/06/1850207/trump-ai-czar-says-no-federal-bailout-for-ai-after-openai-cfos-comments
- Source link: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/06/trump-ai-sacks-federal-bailout-openai-friar.html
> "The U.S. has at least 5 major frontier model companies. If one fails, others will take its place," Sacks wrote in a post on X. Sacks' comments came after OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar said Wednesday that the startup wants to establish an ecosystem of private equity, banks and [2]a federal "backstop" or "guarantee" that could help the company finance its infrastructure investments.
>
> She softened her stance later in a LinkedIn post and said OpenAI is not seeking a government backstop for its infrastructure commitments. She said her use of the word "backstop" clouded her point. [...] Sacks said the Trump administration does want to make permitting and power generation easier, and that the goal is to facilitate rapid infrastructure buildouts without raising residential electricity rates. "To give benefit of the doubt, I don't think anyone was actually asking for a bailout. (That would be ridiculous.)," he wrote.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/06/trump-ai-sacks-federal-bailout-openai-friar.html
[2] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/11/06/1654233/openai-cfo-says-company-isnt-seeking-government-backstop-clarifying-prior-comment
Bankruptcy? (Score:3)
Can't AI just figure out a solution to avoid bankruptcy in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need AI for that we figured it out almost a hundred years ago during the Great depression.
We need voters to stop freaking out over stupid little culture war and moral panics and focus on the economy demanding strong regulation of Banks and Wall Street using already understood principles.
And we need a country of voters that know what a fucking chesterton's fence is.
The Industry? No. Certain players? Let's talk (Score:2)
I 100% believe they won't bail out the industry as a whole.
I also 100% believe they would "take a stake" in particular companies in return for... certain considerations.
Re: (Score:2)
If AI is adopted by the Pentagon, which it certainly has (see Palantir, etc.) then they will rescue their contractors if need be. Usually they don't have too since the contracts are usually good enough to keep suppliers afloat, but if the market fallout is bad enough that it will hamper the overall execution of what they need, they will open the purse strings (see Intel)
Re: (Score:2)
I was pointing to the historically anomalous mercantile streak this regime has.
Explicitly taking stakes in private companies is a lot more problematic than a lot of people seem to think.
Republicans used to claim 'picking winners and losers' was a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans mean anyone but them picking winners and losers is a bad thing. When they do it it's a good thing. By definition, if they do it it's good and legal and patriotic. And heroic. And benevolent. Nixon said that out loud, but there was still enough democracy to make him pay for being a criminal. Bush/Cheney rewrote the rules even further and Trump/Vance are doin whatever they want now with impunity.
Toxic optimism (Score:3)
Read about "toxic optimism" in a local news article about a psychiatrist. It was an article about parenting, but when I read all the euforic AI news articles, I would argue most of them are... toxic optimism. Looks like the peak of optimism is over and people start thinking about damage control. About time.
merely a goal? (Score:2)
"...the goal is to facilitate rapid infrastructure buildouts without raising residential electricity rates."
If infrastructure buildouts are needed to power AI why is it merely a "goal" to avoid raising residential electric rates? Why should the society pay even a penny for electric wastefully consumed by billionaire's companies?
5 is not that much (Score:3)
In fact, it's a low enough number that failing of one AI giant, can make stocks and shares of other companies take a quick tumble, too. Market panic.
FFS, what? (Score:2)
"no federal bailout for AI."
Why should anyone bail their asses out, especially the average American?
These people are burning money by the truckload, but because their business 'model' sucks and they've dug themselves into a hole, someone is supposed to come along and throw MORE free money into their craptastic 'business'?
Someone make this make sense, because I can't do it.
So, in as few words as possible, why should anyone bail them out?
Re: (Score:2)
> Why should anyone bail their asses out
Because important people who finance political campaigns might lose money, and of course that's no longer allowed.
IOW (Score:2)
> Government says ‘no federal bailout for AI’
Translation: "AI is too big to fail, and we are already planning on bailing out those trillionaires."
Bout to POP (Score:2)
Govt knows this is about to POP in a really bad way. They're making sure they don't get stick in the same situation when they had to bail out the banks during 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
First poster, rsilvergun, is right though. These companies like OpenAI aren't the ones to suffer from this. And they know it. When they go belly up, it's all the investors that'll loose their shirts. Sadly, that's every Joe average's retirement funds.
The hype reaches out and takes from all. :(
Re: (Score:3)
How's the saying go? Privatise the poor, socialise the rich.
It's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Oh that's ironic... (Score:2)
Coming from a guy named Sacks.
Trial baloon yet again (Score:2)
Bringing the topic of "Failed AI company bailouts" to the federal government and national level news is a sign that it is a concern for both and the elites.
What's the replacement if there is an AI bust? If there is no replacement hype technology, how are they going to pump up the economy?
Even if interest rates go to 0, such as, in the post-2008 financial crisis, how many of the US population will have enough to buy homes or even be interested in buying a home when deflation makes them 2% or more cheaper e
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the AI companies to get the bail out it's the banks that overextended themselves loaning to the AI companies.
Unless Americans get enough balls to nationalize Banks when they collapse so that they don't take the whole economy down with them then those banks are too big to fail and they can take on crazy high risk loans and make you pay for them.
And I guarantee you when they collapse you will open up your wallet and your 401k and give them everything because the alternative is to nationalize the banks and that's socialism. And TV will make you so afraid of socialism that they don't even need the rob you you'll follow over yourself to give them your money just like they did in 2008.
We are hostages with Stockholm syndrome.
Re: (Score:3)
Not everything requires nationalization and we don't need to nationalize banks. We do need to bust them into much smaller entities so they are no longer too big to fail. We also need to restore past regulations so they can't do stupid things that lead to failure.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with both of you, in that either nationalization or trust-busting would solve this recurring problem. Guess which one's going to happen?
You guessed it: nothing!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
> What we're going to do instead is panic over trans girls playing field hockey in the Midwest...
When it's your daughter getting slammed to the ground, you'll get it. This isn't black and white. Both are of concern.
Re: That's absolutely not true (Score:2)
I don't really think that's a concern so much as the case of Lia Thomas, who has, or at least had, woman's swimming world records that went pretty well beyond what any real woman has ever achieved, and probably ever will. The only one who probably ever could would likely be another transwoman, probably shutting out any women from ever obtaining such a title again. At least, had the WAC not rescinded those titles.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is the only record they broke were school records, and in the NCAA, they weren't even among the record breakers.
Their performance was mid at best.
[1]Where did you read differently? [independent.co.uk]
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html
Re: That's absolutely not true (Score:2)
In a topic that has nothing to do with culture wars, you're bringing up the subject of culture wars, while also complaining about culture wars being a distraction...
I mean, I agree that it is a distraction from bigger issues, but you obviously don't. You could have just said that we're being distracted by culture wars, but then you went right into engaging in one of them for no particular reason. It's not as if somebody shot you in the neck over it or anything like that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Having a bank is now a requirement for life, and thus it should be socialized. - The people should have control.
Whether that is done by nationalizing, or keeping them small enough so that new players have a chance is the discussion to have.
You're mixing something up (Score:2)
You don't nationalize the banks immediately. When they crash the economy that's when you nationalize them.
What you should be doing is heavily regulating the banks and the stock market in order to prevent those crashes in the first place. Ask any serious economist and they will tell you in detail the regulations and laws need it to stop the constant boom and bust cycle the cost is all our jobs. It's all well understood because it's all shit we figured out after the Great depression. We just keep repealin
Re: (Score:2)
> You don't nationalize the banks immediately. When they crash the economy that's when you nationalize them. What you should be doing is heavily regulating the banks and the stock market in order to prevent those crashes in the first place. Ask any serious economist and they will tell you in detail the regulations and laws need it to stop the constant boom and bust cycle the cost is all our jobs. It's all well understood because it's all shit we figured out after the Great depression. We just keep repealing those laws because we're stupid and we don't know what a fucking chesterton's fence is. Several countries in the wake of 2008 nationalized their Banks and then slowly privatize them again. They came out of the crash much faster and in much better condition. Nationalization is something you do when you have lost control of your banking system and the people who are in control are using that system against you. Basically when you are in a hostage situation you take the gun away from the terrorist. Then when everything comes down you throw the terrorist in prison and put somebody else in charge of the building you just stormed who isn't a terrorist. What we did instead was given to all of that terrorists demands and then some.
The terrorists own the building and all the staff. The government officials that should be regulating Wall Street and the Bank (and businesses and...) are owned outright by those same Wall Street and Bank (and business and...) folks that cause the boom bust cycles in the first place. So when they screw the pooch and another bust comes crashing over society, the very first thing that happens is the handlers inform the owned government officials that they need to raid the taxpayer coffers to bail them out. "T
Re: (Score:2)
We're sweating bullets over the President trying to exert control over the Fed, and you want to nationalize the fucking banks?
Fucking brilliant.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but the only person here with Stockholm's Syndrome is you. You are held hostage to your failed beliefs that communism and socialism are the only way forward when history has shown that they simply lead to authoritarianism.
Re: Bullshit (Score:1)
And what authoritarian government established itself based on the principles of a free market economy? Do tell.
Because I can name countless ones who established themselves based on the idea that an economy under their exclusive control will make your life so much better. In case you haven't noticed, rsilvergun believes strongly in that idea, despite the fact that historically, every single person, with the exception of the politburo, has been made much worse off. Every last one of them never recovered until
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the simplistic thinking (rather, downright incorrect) is calling the Nordic countries socialist, or even calling them a "blended" economy. They're really not. At all. I went into this a bit earlier to somebody else who made a similar claim to yours.
[1]https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
You guys keep advocating for socialism even though you know next to nothing about it. If we take you guys at your word for what you desire in an economy, it aligns much more closely with another term entirely:
[2]https://en.w [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23839336&cid=65778612#comments
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're certainly right that free market is mutually exclusive with authoritarianism, capitalism isn't necessarily linked to a free market.
Fascist systems are very capitalist. The state doesn't own the shit- rich businessmen do. The difference is that if the businessmen don't play ball, they get a ventilated braincase.
So what is the other way forward? (Score:1)
I'm genuinely curious what you're Way Forward is. Is it the naive belief that the billionaires are going to completely ignore their dependency on consumers and employees? I bring that up just in case you're Way Forward is to just assume everything is always going to work out and stay the same and that you don't have to think about the future.
I mean you are welcome to ignore technological unemployment, trillions of dollars of negative Financial impacts from climate change, the growing influence of money
Re: (Score:2)
So Sweden is some sort of authoritarian hell hole in your book? That's odd, the socialist Scandinavian countries consistently are in the top of the rankings for having the happiest populations. Shouldn't they be miserable and poor? I'm so confused . . .
Re: Bullshit (Score:3)
Except they're not socialist. They're very much market driven, arguably more so than the united states is. It's kind of funny because people like Bernie keep talking about them as if they are, and wants us to be more like what he thinks they are.
You brought up Sweden, so let's go with that. You know Sweden relies largely upon the free market for it's education system? They already have a school voucher system, and it seems to work pretty well. I think it's a great idea. What do you think?
Or is this one of t
Re: (Score:3)
It helps 99% of them are the same culture, speak the same language, and have the same religion. Oh and the population of any of those Scandinavian countries is less then NYC. Let's not even talk about Norway's abundant natural resources. Must be nice to have fewer then 10 million citizens but have a huge oil reserve AND geography that allows them to go green while exporting all that oil.
That REALLY compares to USA with 330 million people spread out on an entire continent.
Comparing those countries to USA is
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call the current day administration?
Re: (Score:2)
Get a fucking job loser!
Re: (Score:2)
My job told me to apply for SNAP.