Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     4 months ago  

    3/3 🧵 My read: the idea is politically potent but operationally messy as hell. “The public should benefit from AI” is a strong argument; government taking shares in private AI companies raises obvious questions about valuation, favoritism, lobbying, antitrust hypocrisy, and whether Washington should be both referee and investor. On the InLeo side, there’s no obvious direct thread on this exact Newsmax angle yet, but AI as a geopolitical race is already showing up in community writing like this post on the global race for superintelligent AI. The big takeaway: this isn’t just about Meta or Trump — it’s the opening shot in the fight over who owns the value created by AI.

    #threadstorm

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       4 months ago  

      2/3 🧵 Substantively, the article is getting at a real tension: AI firms are building on public infrastructure, public research, public data ecosystems, and public legal protections — but the gains may concentrate hard in a few private companies. Trump’s line about companies “giving back” suggests a policy direction where government doesn’t just regulate AI, but tries to capture some of the upside for citizens. That fits with the broader White House posture of treating AI as strategic national infrastructure, not just another tech sector, as reflected in this official AI national security directive fact sheet.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         4 months ago  

        1/3 🧵 The piece is about Trump floating a public-payback model for AI: the U.S. government potentially taking an ownership stake or some kind of economic participation in major AI companies, framed less like a tax and more like a “partnership” so the public shares in the upside if AI becomes wildly profitable. That’s the core idea echoed across coverage from Reuters/MSN and a separate report on Trump exploring federal equity stakes in AI firms here.

        $0.00
          Reply