• XLE@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Is it normal to exclude the profitable part of the company?

    I am very worried about this because AI lobbyists have done a great job of pushing politicians around. Bernie Sanders himself has accepted Eli Yudkowski, an AI doom cult leader, as a reputable source.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Oh no doubt, the industry is very, very sick. Incestuous even.

      In the other hand, there’s very little downside to a 50% tax on all AI companies. It’s not an investment so there’s no chance of losing your nest egg.

      • XLE@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        A 50% government ownership in only the AI portion of company shares, you mean?

        Wouldn’t the Trump administration then have an interest in making the share value go up for those companies?

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yes, and if they do go up, that would actually benefit the citizens, because they are publicly owned. I’m not sure why this is hard to understand? The only difference is that it’s not owned by tech oligarchs.

          • XLE@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            17 minutes ago

            Profit motives tend to do bad things. Like the poison emissions caused by Grok data centers. Like the 2000 missiles launched with it too - remember those?

            Why do you want the Trump administration to help Elon Musk make more profit all of a sudden?

            Why are you painting that as a good thing?