this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
539 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

85059 readers
3261 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 6 points 33 minutes ago

Does this mean we'll all be bag holders when the AI bubble bursts?

[–] HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You know they will agree and give everyone stakes exactly when bubble is about to pop

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 1 points 2 minutes ago

Public stake isn't for profits (especially not short term capital gains), it's about concentration & not getting controlled.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 1 points 4 minutes ago

This is the only sensible way (but we were taught it's "evil").

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 4 points 58 minutes ago

It would be a good idea if the entirety of the current industry for it wasn't built entirely on smoke and mirrors type promises.

The general idea (so far as I can parse) is that if these companies are expecting a government bailout when it all goes south, then the tax payers who would be bailing them out should get paid back. But in practice, what will happen is we'll be saddled with the debt and these companies will weasel out of it.

The fact is I don't want to own a stake in any of these companies. I would rather they make it illegal for these companies to ask for a bailout from the government and close loopholes they will use to file for bankruptcy.

If they're going to fail the government should buy their assets (data centers, infrastructure, etc) if the people agree that's okay. Instead of what will likely happen (the companies left standing when it all goes under will buy up all the assets dirt cheap).

Not the right move dawg

[–] RxBrad@infosec.pub 1 points 30 minutes ago

AI is just a financial grift to circlejerk money out of the stock market; and then reap a big, fat government bailout when the bubble inevitably pops.

If we share the profits, do we also share the risks? What happens to this plan when AI implodes?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 47 minutes ago (1 children)

Defense, oil, and media industries should be a higher percentage. They are historically responsible for most corrupt lobbying/disinformation/warmongering and alliance with zionazi rule over the US. The strategic unanimity of "must beat China or maintain zionazi bias over population control" for AI means that it is meant to be a corruption vector for skynet, funneling all of our wealth and liberty onto privatized profit from skynet.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 minutes ago

Also all pubic infrastructure that is needed for normal lives (from transport to payment systems).

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 2 hours ago

The public should own all of AI, and corporations should be forced to ask the public to lend compute. AI is a powerful tool, and if we give the elite ownership of it, they will someday cut society loose: By killing or enslaving us all, and using robots to autonomously fulfill the wealthy's wish to be truly free of responsibility.

[–] borQue@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

Oh fuck do we have censoring moderhaters here too now? I can stand up for my own opinion, asshole moderhaterfucktard

[–] Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 44 points 5 hours ago (5 children)

First of all, fuck no. Remove all of the AI companies. Now. Secondly, this will guarantee they become "too big to fail". Like, it feels as if they're purposefully doing this to make it palatable to bail them out.

[–] MadameBisaster@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 minutes ago

Always seeing these kinds of messages and kinda curious, I guess you mean LLMs with all AI and not truly all ai? Cause there are a lot more stuff under that umbrella term thats super useful for example in medicine etc

[–] isekaihero@ani.social 10 points 2 hours ago

I agree. No public funds should go to AI. No taxpayer money should be used to construct AI or datacenters. When the AI companies start to collapse, they should receive no bailouts.

Bailouts are corruption. Why do the rich get socialism and the rest of us get crushing capitalism? When we fail, we get stepped on. When the rich fail, they get billion dollar bailouts? But they claim they deserve to keep all their riches because they worked hard for it?

I could be a billionaire oligarch too if all of my failures were compensated for with billion dollar bailouts. It's not hard to succeed when you are elevated to the heights of the gods every time you face a little adversity.

[–] positiveWHAT@lemmy.world 19 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I think the intention is to get the profits of automation to the people when more jobs are inevitably automated.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago

It is, but unintended consequences.

With this, then we couldn't afford Sam Altman to experience failure because he will drag folks down with him. So the companies invested become too big to fall, and the still private leadership gets to run things however they wish knowing the government will cover for any mistakes.

It's bad enough as the government will panic about retirement accounts when they falter, this exacerbates it.

It's a risky form of private-public partnership, with a lot of ways the company can privatize rewards but socialize the risk.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

well said. The problem is they are overvalued anyway..... so we take half of a trillion dollar company that only worth 30% of that number, so we take a big ass loss. unless we are just straight up taking half and there's no compensation provided. can't imagine the SRCOTUS riding with that policy.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

This feels like a setup to the biggest rug-pull in history. The whole thing is going to shit and the taxpayers will be holding the bags.

[–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 points 5 minutes ago

These AI companies rushing to do IPOs so the public’s retirement account index funds can buy them up and take the loss for them, too.

These people need to suffer real consequences.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Bruh they are working on deregulating debt swaps so they can hide how much leverage is going into these build outs. Trillions of dollars of data centers with mortgages and rent to own NVDA chips. its looking like the greatest scam of all time rn.

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

I think it makes sense. The bill will be paid off from taxes, so it makes sense that the bailout comes with company stock transfer to workers.

It's fair for many reasons. One of them is that billionaires and corporations don't pay taxes.

What about, instead of 50%, make the bailed out company be 100% owned by the people - not the government, the people.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

By the time the public own it, it will be a liability, not an asset. I've seen my government purchase a telco's entire infrastructure only to immediately write it off.

Just set it on fire already.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

yep lol and thats how it will work. we'll get a bunch of data centers with a 5 year lifespan and 30 years of debt strapped to them.

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 hours ago

I don’t think these companies are worth the value of the paper that their charters are written on. I don’t think many of them are going to last much longer, but he might actually be on to something here in terms of diffusing a massive financial fraud that’s about to happen in broad daylight.

The common wisdom right now is to just “put your money in an index fund, it’s safer and outperforms actively managed portfolios.” Which is to say, a fund that just buys a little bit of everything from a given list, rather than trying to pick stocks that someone thinks will do well, it creates a very diversified portfolio that is protected from anyone company fucking up by having the value spread over as many things as possible. Because many people just put their money in index funds now, getting listed in an index kind of guarantees that lots of people will be buying the shares consistently and thus consistently causing the price to rise over time.

To get in to these lists, normally, a company has to have been public for a while, generally about a year, and show profitability for a prolonged time. These rules have recently been changed though.

A bunch of the AI companies are doing initial public offerings (IPO meaning putting their shares on the public markets for the first time) in the next few months. And stating absolutely insane valuations. Because of the rule changes, they’re basically all getting immediately listed in index funds. And since they’re all targeting insane valuations, they’re going to automatically suck up a bunch of retirement money by default.

I’m not sure about anthropic and openAI on this next part, but SpaceX (which just “bought” Xai), is only going public with about 5% of it’s shares, so theoretically they can just trickle more shares on to the market to get bought up by index funds, and because supply of actual shares is artificially constrained, it will lead to massive overvaluation of those shares, taking up a disproportionate amount of money going in to index funds.

It’s actually fucking criminal that this is being allowed to happen, but because the rules for index funds and IPOs are set by financial institutions and stock exchanges, with very limited oversight by the government, they can just do this.

If the government were to take these 50% shares, it would kind of throw a wrench in the plans, since it would give the government the ability to sell those shares on to the market and stop the over valuation that allows them to take disproportionately from the index funds.

[–] imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Officially too old and senile.

[–] Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world 1 points 53 minutes ago

Yet you still managed to post this despite your struggles, well done you!

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 29 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

When I found out what it meant when other countries have sovereign wealth funds...

I have no idea how most people in America keep convincing themselves they've somehow got a good deal.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 30 points 6 hours ago

It's mostly oil countries that have a sovereign wealth fund and it comes out of the oil money. Norway, Saudi Arabia. Idea being that oil is a limited resource with a lot of value and the proceeds should be used to ensure everyone's future.

Of course the US IS an oil country...

[–] Footer1998@crazypeople.online 18 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

rare bernie L

just do socialism. stop this wishy washy bullshit. capitalism must die.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Footer1998@crazypeople.online 4 points 5 hours ago

not saying it's going to be easy but we just need to accept that capitalism cannot be reformed before we progress to the next step: how can we abolish capitalism and create a world that is just

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›