This feels a bit off.. How is the government supposed to be able to regulate them impartially when they're literally invested in them.

What if a competitive startup startup starts to really take away from OpenAi's profits and then all of a sudden requires some approval for merger with Anthropic for example, I don't know if I would trust the government to be fair in their decision here.

Leaving aside the potential for letting the government(tax payers) hold the bag if there is a collapse.

I assume that’s why Altman wants the government as a co-owner.

Wouldn’t the solution to that be for the government to also demand a 5% stake in every AI company? Along the lines of what Sanders wants to do?

> How is the government supposed to be able to regulate them impartially when they're literally invested in them.

That is exactly the point of this move, especially during the Trump administration.

This is quite literally government control of the means of production, which is the central tenet of the economic philosophy that the right repeatedly claims is their greatest mortal fear: socialism.

You’re completely correct, of course, but I also think it’s worth remembering that the current regulatory environment is also made up of people, so the opportunity for corruption is already there. It does seem preferable to at least have the government putting its thumb on the scales to benefit the country at large, versus money under the table that benefits politicians and bureaucrats.

The Trump/Bessent/Lutnick grouping has no interest in regulating "impartially." Quite the opposite. That's the illusion of US capitalism 30 years ago.

Today's is explicitly more like Putin's Russia: the state has been captured by a series of private interests, one of whom is kingmaker, and you have to pay to play.

It's transactional and parasitical, not bureaucratic or regulatory. As long as the King and his friends get their cut your bridge can open, your new AI model can launch, or the US gov't will back up your crazy business with gov't debt.

It's not a stable system, but it's a system.

>This feels a bit off.. How is the government supposed to be able to regulate them impartially when they're literally invested in them.

Was the government impartial to begin with? Or were they stomping things and handing out favorable treatment based on the political whims of the minute?

Seems to me like "hey buddy you own some (but not too much) of this too so play the long game" provides somewhat of a counter incentive.

Will it work? Will it do the opposite and make things worse? Heck if I know.