My question is if there’s a stake to be had in the first place. We can’t keep absorbing their failures like we did X and xAI through the SpaceX Nasdaq scam. We need a stake without assuming the risks. The public already had the IP and are under no obligation to accept risks assumed by a bunch of entitled rich guys.
I guess “stake” is only meaningful when it’s defined as profits and not losses, since the public never agreed to the risks of potential losses and the billionaires are just stealing IP.
IDK what exactly you’re not understanding but I suspect it’s the difference between a gift and a purchase. The US will not be purchasing this 50% stake in OpenAI with additional money. It will be free. It was technically paid for with all the (not public) IP they used to create these models in the first place.
When you get something in return for nothing, that something is always a positive value even if it’s just a fraction of what it started as.
My question is if there’s a stake to be had in the first place. We can’t keep absorbing their failures like we did X and xAI through the SpaceX Nasdaq scam. We need a stake without assuming the risks. The public already had the IP and are under no obligation to accept risks assumed by a bunch of entitled rich guys.
I guess “stake” is only meaningful when it’s defined as profits and not losses, since the public never agreed to the risks of potential losses and the billionaires are just stealing IP.
IDK what exactly you’re not understanding but I suspect it’s the difference between a gift and a purchase. The US will not be purchasing this 50% stake in OpenAI with additional money. It will be free. It was technically paid for with all the (not public) IP they used to create these models in the first place.
When you get something in return for nothing, that something is always a positive value even if it’s just a fraction of what it started as.