This is true but you also have to ask what OpenAI is getting out of this deal. They’re not just going to give away stock for nothing, and the US government doesn’t have a policy of helping itself to portions of companies.
So OpenAI thinks it’s getting something for this. Whatever that is, it’s bribing the government to get.
I agree this level of scrutiny should be applied to the situation, but there is a growing sentiment of the government stepping in to take returns from AI, Bernie Sanders asked for it (where I got the 50% from) and many other countries have this exact model. Hell Alaska has this model for oil already.
It could be what openai is hoping to get out of this is only needing to give up 5% instead of a much larger number and be able to look like a good guy giving back.
I’m open to hearing what a theory is that openai is trying to bribe the government with but I’d say my explanation is more plausible than an unknown backdoor deal.
I think at this point it’s speculation. Your speculation is a reasonable one. But with Trump, I think there’s another very reasonable one: he’s a natural fascist so they’re just trying to buy a future unspecified favour. Maybe it’ll be to avoid having to give up a bigger stake in the future, or to avoid a big tax, but they probably don’t know exactly. I’d compare it to all the techbros donating to Trump’s campaign and turning up to his inauguration - they don’t know exactly what they’re getting out of that deal, but they know they’d rather pay homage to the king than be on his shit list.
So to me this is evidence of corruption, even without a known deal having taken place. They know that Trump plays favourites with the enormous power he wields, so they want to be the favourite.
Agreed 100% we are both speculating at motives. So if we set that aside the question then becomes would it be better for institutional shareholders to have this 5% or for a wealth fund like the Alaska permanent fund to have it.
Even in a case of this being about bribing the trump admin it would result in all future administrations having access to this as well. This would require a bill in Congress to implement so I say support it and look at the bill to see if there is a way that trump or someone else can abuse it, then we can get out the pitchforks
This is true but you also have to ask what OpenAI is getting out of this deal. They’re not just going to give away stock for nothing, and the US government doesn’t have a policy of helping itself to portions of companies.
So OpenAI thinks it’s getting something for this. Whatever that is, it’s bribing the government to get.
I agree this level of scrutiny should be applied to the situation, but there is a growing sentiment of the government stepping in to take returns from AI, Bernie Sanders asked for it (where I got the 50% from) and many other countries have this exact model. Hell Alaska has this model for oil already.
It could be what openai is hoping to get out of this is only needing to give up 5% instead of a much larger number and be able to look like a good guy giving back.
I’m open to hearing what a theory is that openai is trying to bribe the government with but I’d say my explanation is more plausible than an unknown backdoor deal.
I think at this point it’s speculation. Your speculation is a reasonable one. But with Trump, I think there’s another very reasonable one: he’s a natural fascist so they’re just trying to buy a future unspecified favour. Maybe it’ll be to avoid having to give up a bigger stake in the future, or to avoid a big tax, but they probably don’t know exactly. I’d compare it to all the techbros donating to Trump’s campaign and turning up to his inauguration - they don’t know exactly what they’re getting out of that deal, but they know they’d rather pay homage to the king than be on his shit list.
So to me this is evidence of corruption, even without a known deal having taken place. They know that Trump plays favourites with the enormous power he wields, so they want to be the favourite.
Agreed 100% we are both speculating at motives. So if we set that aside the question then becomes would it be better for institutional shareholders to have this 5% or for a wealth fund like the Alaska permanent fund to have it.
Even in a case of this being about bribing the trump admin it would result in all future administrations having access to this as well. This would require a bill in Congress to implement so I say support it and look at the bill to see if there is a way that trump or someone else can abuse it, then we can get out the pitchforks