What do you mean, nothing? They have an app that they can ask to read wikipedia for them and turn it into bullet points.

People say this, but I disagree. It's all one big slippery slope of zero value - the more a company can charge you for fewer features, the more they profit.

The parent is correct to identify that a lack of free market controls are what's destroying us here. You wouldn't have to pay out the nose like this if the fed didn't build and enforce monopolies for fun. But now we're here, after 20 years of Google's AdSense monopoly and Apple's App Store monopoly, throwing stones at OpenAI for ruining the fun.

Feels like we deserve this, everyone ignored the warning signs and pushed us way up the corporate escalation ladder.

First, Americans need voting fixed. How can anyone vote for reasonable alternative in the archaic first past the post system, where a slight majority takes all the votes of every voter? It prevents any new small party to grow into bigger party by actually working as a minority in the Senate/Congress.

Either that or hating the minorities, so... yeah.

> But after the more recent bank and auto bailouts I wouldn't expect to see this happen again. The shareholders would really prefer to have money thrown at them but also keep their stake.

The auto bailouts did not feature shareholders having money thrown at them and keeping their stakes (GM and Chrysler shareholders, for instance, were almost completely wiped out in the bailout, with the new GM owned by the UAW and the US and Canadian governments; the new Chrysler was majority owned by Fiat with minority stakes held by an autoworkers pension fund and the US and Canadian governments.)

Bank bailouts were more protective of shareholders because they were mostly government purchase of distressed assets or extensions of credit,

Thanks for the context. Nuts that this is not seen as a strictly better outcome vs a bailout.

Not really, Intel had funding from Biden's bill, and Trump told them that in order to have that money they had to give a stake to the government. In this case Intel isn't being bailed out, just securing funding for new chip foundaries

But not really right? It could happen in the market, company A chooses to bailout company B by buying it and investing money to keep it afloat.

Except company A in this case is the government. No? Why is it that when it is the government doing this action, it has to gift the money instead of potentially profiting from it?

Edit : just saw the edit. I see! But still, I don't get in what sense it is more socialist, instead of just saving the companing 'for free', people actually buy (forcefully invest?) in the company to save it. If anything it makes it more capitalist if the taxpayers invest in the bailout, instead of just giving it away!

How many Americans even have money for retirement?

It reminds me of 1990s Russia were the smart people didn't get caught up in capitalism casino and just kept tending their vegetable garden like they had done for centuries.

To quote Bob Dylan

"If you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose"