(My personal hot take is that, both for copyright reasons ("Purpose and Character of the Use", aka for-profit, is a critical factor in determining copyright violation, such as from scraping), and general moral reciprocity argument (closed commercial models extracts profit from the commons without giving back), closed source trainers should fundamentally be required to give back to the commons in some meaningful way)

I think the possible adverse impacts to society would not be outweighed by something that small.

With some measure of public ownership, whatever that means, Congress can roll out an exemption allowing LLMs to snarfle anything ignoring copyright laws.

Why would the public want to "offer out" grants to "Open Source development"? What is the public benefit?

Exactly. And they may succeed. No idea why Sanders thinks this is a good idea though.

> So in other words, they want to offload their failing businesses onto the US Taxpayers.

That's not really the point.

The point is the upcoming revolution in autonomous labor, which will turn our current financial system upside down.

For reference, you might want to check out [1]Manna [marshallbrain.com], by Marshall Brain (his actual name). It's an easy read, it's short, and it outlines the impact that robot labor will have on our current model of capitalism.

It's no secret that ChatGPT is useful, and a force multiplier for productive output. If that type of breakthrough can be achieved with physical processing, then m

[1] https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

I think this is the thing people are getting confused about.

AI isn't a business. For a brief period of time it will be integrated into the economy as capital. That's not the same thing as a business. It's something you own to produce things. It's not a business in and of itself it's a cost center that is part of a business.

That's not going to last very long. Because that's not the purpose of ai..

The goal of AI is to completely replace wages. Or at least replace enough of them that the bargaining

My reaction too. The difference between ownership and taxation is the important thing to consider. Taxation takes benefit from success, ownership also imposes burden from failure.

Yup... Just wait a little longer and we will have to buy it to protect those poor investors from bankruptcy.

Such a tragedy else ...

This exactly. There's a potentially valid argument to be made for investing in the overall market but shoveling tax dollars into the trendy stocks of the moment? No.

> He knows he is due for a catastrophic business failure quite soon. Being partially publicly owned would give him access to taxpayer money...

You mean Too Big To Fail money.

Let's call it what it is.

And if we thought American auto manufacturing arrogance was a bit Too Big to deal with before, just wait until Seven companies insist they're far too Magnificent to Fail..

Agree. No bailouts, no too big to fail for AI firms.

Ya Altman and Sanders are talking about two different things entirely. Altman wants taxpayer money to support the company and take on the risk, Sanders wants guardrails. The title makes it sound like some big koombaya moment. Trump just trying to figure out how he can make it benefit him personally.

"Sanders is angling for tax gains to help replace the taxes el Bunko has reduced on the wealthy."

Not really. Sanders has a lifetime of never doing anything beyond talking. He doesn't have specific goals and, frankly, tax/regulation reform is easier to achieve than socializing industry. Sanders is advocating for more than a new source of revenue, though what that would be is unclear as it always is with Sanders.

The way to replace taxes given to the wealthy is to tax the wealthy.

Means of slopduction.

That is false. Worse yet, if the USSR is anything today it is ascendent.

It's good to know your thinking on the issue ends at partisanship, though. Can save time that way.

What is your arbitrary, indefensible, and dumb solution then? 100%? How would "revenue linked to job loss" be determined?

As with anything involving industry and government, a primary concern is corruption. "revenue linked to job loss", "non-voting stakes", "distributing ill-gotten gains", "original rights owners", these are all opportunities for corruption. A solution that codifies the ways it will be made to fail is no solution.

"Assume that you personally took a ground breaking idea, turned it into a business, and grew it into something of massive value. You did it."

You can engage in your masturbatory fantasies of personal greatness all you want, but AI is no such thing. AI doesn't exist at all, at least in its current form, without the production of billions of people over enormous time.

"I don't care how much of a granola crunching communist philanthropist you think you are."

I suspect that's all you care about. That's all your

And at least two of those people are full blown sociopaths whose actions we should oppose out of principle.

It is a competition over there isn't it. I bet they hired someone to review everything. "Uhm Mr. President, page 7 paragraph 32, I found something that may be a bit too reasonable and needs rewording." "Ah good catch, silence everyone! I need to think! Ah, I got it. Add a "not" before the "equal" over here." "Brilliant mister president!" "Shut up, where are my pancakes! I need my pancakes!"