If they genuinely wanted an answer instead of burying their head in the sand, you’d think they would ask any other sub.
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, has proposed that the federal government take small stakes in the leading artificial intelligence companies so the public can share in the industry’s financial bonanza. He has reportedly suggested giving the government a 5 percent stake in his own company, which would be worth $42.6 billion at the current market price.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont says the government should take a 50 percent stake in the leading companies, placing the shares in a state-controlled sovereign wealth fund. In addition to a share in the profits, he says ownership would give the government greater control over the development of a technology that has the potential to shake our society. [cough, cough — idiot]
⸺
Nor does the United States need boardroom seats to participate in decision-making. That is the purpose of regulation. The government has broad powers to check corporate conduct that is antithetical to the public interest.
⸺
There are big downsides to government ownership stakes. By providing insulation against market forces, state backing can make companies less competitive, less innovative and less worried about the welfare of their customers. And the history of state investment suggests that, if anything, it often makes regulation more difficult. Governments can be reluctant to enforce rules when action comes at the expense of the state, too.
We also are concerned about the specific dangers that would arise if the current administration took a stake in A.I. companies. Mr. Trump has made clear that he will use almost any tools at his disposal to enrich himself and his allies and to act against Americans whom he perceives as his enemies.
⸺
The impact on the corporation is only part of the problem. State ownership doesn’t just insulate companies from market forces. It also tends to insulate against regulation.
The public should regard Mr. Altman’s proposal with frank suspicion. It is a payment; the question is what he hopes to receive in return, and the obvious answer is that he is hoping to purchase leniency. He is hoping that the government will deal less strictly with his company if every decision to constrain its ambitions comes, in part, at the expense of the government, too. He has good reason, to judge from the historical record.
State-owned oil companies provide glaring examples. The Norwegian government is a signatory of the Paris Accords, which establish goals for reducing emissions to limit climate change. It is also the majority shareholder in Equinor, Norway's dominant oil company. Norway's petroleum wealth provides 30 percent of the government's annual revenue. Last year, the government blocked an effort by minority shareholders in the company to force Equinor to account for the company's failure to comply with the environmental policies the government itself has adopted.
Other examples abound. South Africa has legislated more lenient emissions standards for power plants owned by the state utility company, Eskom. Singapore does not require Temasek, a state-owned investment firm, to make the same financial disclosures as many privately owned investment firms. France, for years, exempted some state-owned companies from its bankruptcy laws, allowing those businesses to borrow more cheaply.
⸻
Note: I only included excerpts on the point that I personally care about the most. They do not summarize the op-ed, nor include all of the points the op-ed made, so you should read the op-ed if you want to read about how else this would affect our lives.
Steven Pruitt, who is widely regarded as the most prolific Wikipedia editor, has made more than six million edits to the site, and, by extension, has quietly shaped the raw material that every major A.I. chatbot was trained on.
A shockingly inefficient trillion-dollar project
If you aren't familiar with Pew Research, they are the most trusted source when it comes to capturing sentiment on various topics. So for those of you who keep finding yourself debating with people over whether or not people like AI and blah blah blah, here's the most recent and the most credible source you'll get.
I'm just pulling out a couple takeaways I thought were interesting, so I highlight suggest you read the whole thing instead!
In case you missed it:
Starbucks scraps AI inventory tool across North America
Starbucks terminated an AI program workers used for automating certain inventory counts this week, nine months after deploying it across its North American stores, according to an internal newsletter reviewed by Reuters and two people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The tool was part of CEO Brian Niccol's efforts to fix the coffee chain's persistent product shortages that he has blamed for hurting sales. The app - designed to improve Starbucks’ visibility into shortages at stores - frequently miscounted and mislabeled items, such as confusing similar milk types or missing them altogether, Reuters reported in February.
Labeling LLMs “AI” was the most genius marketing move of all time.
No one wants this. No one asked for this. Why are you making up dates like it will hype us up?
Sharing this because apparently it’s not yet conventional wisdom that Grokipedia is no bueno.
>“When I saw evidence that our products were being used to harm people and undermine the law, I did what anyone should do—I raised the alarm. Thomson Reuters’ response was to fire me.”