These are not silly equivalences.

All the major labs would be dead in the water if the government acted on the things I mentioned. If they treated the labs the way they would have treated us for all those hacks. Or if they enforced pollution measures (or god forbid ban on-prem turbines because of the climate damage). Or rule that training on data is not fair use, or that ingesting GPL3 code and then turning that into weights counts as a derivative work. Or. Or. Or.

Those are all just as important as cash.

Nah, nothing here is a special advantage of US firms.

The hacks are pretty bland as long as there is no mens rea and the hacked victims do not want to press charges. This isn't a "subsidy", it's just our normal legal process at work.

The pollution question is winding its way through court systems and getting a lot of pushback. I wouldn't call this a subsidy, just a slow bureaucracy. And at any rate this isn't special to the US; certainly China's environmental policy is far more lenient.

With the training data, again there's nothing specific to US corporations here. Anyone can use that dataset. It's just how our legal system works. You might not like it, but it's the accepted law right now. This doesn't meet any reasonable definition of "subsidy".

On the other hand, shoveling billions of dollars of taxpayer funds into corporations is by definition a subsidy. Full stop.