this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
72 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

85526 readers
4542 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
72
Bernie Sanders Introduces Legislation to Create $7 Trillion AI Sovereign Wealth Fund (www.sanders.senate.gov)
submitted 3 hours ago by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1204708/bernie-sanders-introduces-legislation-to-create-7-trillion-ai-sovereign-wealth-fund

all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] XLE@piefed.social 22 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 18 minutes ago) (2 children)

I'm not an economic genius, but this doesn't seem like a great idea.

At current valuations, the sovereign wealth fund that would be created under this legislation would be worth an estimated $7 trillion.

Are these companies really worth what their valuations claim to be?

The Independent Commission would use voting shares in these companies to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them.

Wait, who's purchasing the shares in these companies?

it would require large companies that operate both AI and non-AI businesses to break up those businesses, ensuring the public receives an ownership stake in the AI business.

Separate the profitable part and let the oligarchs keep that for themselves??

ETA: Bernie Sanders has been mislead by an actual AI doom cult leader, so the AI-is-inevitable lobby's foot is already in the door with him.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 25 minutes ago

We need to make aggressive nationalization cool again. A thank you card, a pizza party and a "you won at capitalism" medal. Throw them in prison if they complain, China does it with their CEOs.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody is purchasing the shares here, it’s a tax.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

The "tax" is the ownership of those stocks...

This is so bizarre because with other funds, they're done for proven profitable things. Oil in Alaska. We could have gone after all tech company stock, but Bernie Sanders only went for the unproven, unprofitable thing.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

In what way is a tax a purchase? It’s ownership but not purchase.

The government, on threat of imprisonment, says give us your stock. No money changes hands, only the AI companies lose.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Neat. The government gets a 50% stake in only the Grok part of SpaceX, not the profitable parts of it... And then the government has an incentive to help Grok profit.

This is bad because it seems like

  • Elon Musk remains untaxed on the profitable parts of his company
  • the government is incentivized to build Grok more poison methane turbines to pump its share value
[–] brianpeiris@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 hours ago

Bernie has good intentions, but he was AI-pilled by Geoffrey Hinton, who ironically also has good intentions. However, they are both out of touch with reality.

[–] Amoxtli@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 hour ago

Not even Barack Obama supported Bernie Sanders.

[–] ushmel@piefed.world -3 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

man, bernie needs to hang it up, he's drinking the kool aid

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 15 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

He wants to take 7 trillion dollars from AI companies. That's what a sovereign wealth fund is, it's when you take profits from a source, and store it to use on things like health care, wellfare, pensions, public transport, housing, infrastructure, ect.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

Lol, good one, who actually thinks AI companies are profitable?

[–] XLE@piefed.social -1 points 3 hours ago

The page says it's a one-time tax... so which AI companies have that?

I would like to know how much would actually be in that fun right away rather than what it could maybe be. Valuations are skewed. We know this. Just look at WeWork.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

He’s calling to tax 50% of all the company shares in AI, making it a public benefit.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

He's calling for a group under the current US president to have 50% of the stock of the AI companies... And only the AI (read: no-path-to-profit) part of those companies.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, that’s how national organizations work. It’s not like some random VC firm that privately owns the stock. It’d be owned by the nation, and the directors would be required to pay dividends to the public on those profits.

This is basic sovereign wealth fund stuff.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

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 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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 5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

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 1 points 11 minutes ago* (last edited 9 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?