"the wealth it generates must benefit humanity."

Currently, it's very expensive and most companies are running at a loss to grab market share. Should tax payers fund these losses as well? People like Bernie Sanders only want to benefit from a situation where all risk is taken out of the equation and they can take the wins, which doesn't line up with reality.

In addition to this, it's relatively cheap for the average person to get access to AI, since it's essentially being subsidized by investors.

Are we going to pretend that this is what's in the article, or are we going to engage with the substance of the article?

AI development is not purely a private-sector achievement, it never was. Governments fund research, infrastructure, education, energy systems, procurement and industrial policy that make large-scale AI possible. So taxpayers already absorb part of the cost and risk, while private companies seek to keep the resulting assets and profits for themselves.

If we look at how (or on what) AI is built, it becomes obvious that it's not even a public funding matter only, since these tools effectively extract humanity's accumulated language, writing, research, culture and knowledge. Not private info, not private resources, not some person's secret invention, but our shared knowledge. The companies have enclosed a collectively produced resource and converted it into private property.

Furthermore, we either accept that IP is legitimate / a strong argument, in which case humanity should have a easy claim over the knowledge used to build AI, or that IP is weak / a bit of a joke, in which case AI companies' claims to exclusive proprietary control are automatically weak and we have even more reason to nationalise these services.

> Should tax payers fund these losses as well?

should governments make risky investments is a good question, but lets at least tax unrealized gains and wealth first.