"There are two broad ways this can work: 1. You divide this 5% over all US households, handing each a direct stake. 2. You give the stake directly to the government. (1) is fine. (2) is probably ruinous, akin to inviting rats to live and reproduce in the walls of your house." — Dean W. Ball
SUMMARYOpenAI faced a rumor that it might give a 5% stake to the Trump administration, based on a Financial Times claim circulated on X by Andrew Curran. Dean W. Ball argued that distributing ownership directly to U.S. households could make sense, while a government stake would invite political capture and public backlash. He also said the rumor may be misleading and that he has no direct involvement with OpenAI.
OpenAI is proposing handing over a 5% stake to the Trump administration according to the Financial Times.
— Andrew Curran
Source: https://x.com/AndrewCurran_/status/2072533453611139332
There are two broad ways this can work:
(1) is fine. (2) is probably ruinous, akin to inviting rats to live and reproduce in the walls of your house.
It will never stop at 5%. It will go on and on and on. The governance will become a nightmare. Political capture will be real. And it will generate precisely no goodwill with the public. None, if they themselves see no direct financial benefit.
“What has the AI industry even done for America.”
“Well, it handed a collective $200b of itself to Donald Trump.”
Half the country instantly hates you, and even a decent chunk of Republicans will assume this is corrupt by default.
No, nobody at OpenAI is discussing a word of this with me. I don’t work there yet. And this rumor may even be importantly untrue or misleading in some way. A vehicle that distributes ownership among the people can make sense. A government stake, however, is the wrong path.
I do however invite all the people who said I have become a corporate marionette to submit their public apology forms at their leisure
— Dean W. Ball