lunatic_lobster

This is quite a take. Ownership equates to subsidies? So elon musk is the largest subsidized of space x and has absolutely 0 to gain from owning the stock? What is it that openai is gaining by giving away free stock? The only thing they are "gaining" is less control over their company and less ability to raise investment.

The gymnastic backflips I see happening in this thread are intense. A sovereign wealth fund DOES flip stocks back onto the market, that's the whole point. Look at Norway's ~$2 trillion sovereign wealth fund sells about 3% per year. (Similar for the Alaska permanent fund)

Assuming you mean HELOC how in the world is this anything like a HELOC? If a HELOC was the bank giving me free stocks I get to own forever and do whatever I want with I would he getting them every chance I get.

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

No it doesn't seem likely that the government would do that. The government collected more than $5 trillion last year in taxes. If the government wants to get more money they are incentivized to make the whole us economy more efficient, not prop up failing investments that would lead to the detriment of the rest of its revenue sources.

They propped up gm and chrystler because the auto industry collapsing would have sent shockwaves through the whole economy. I'm not saying I agree with what they did, but it wasn't for a return on stocks.

The key thing here is this is funneling PRIVATE Monet into PUBLIC hands, we need more of this!

I don't like the military industrial complex, and sure this money will help fund that technically because money is fungible. But I want to expand government programs like social security and Medicare, and I'd love for an administration that also wants to do that to have openai's returns to fuel it.

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 this is a much better argument than the bailout ones I see in this thread, but I still disagree.

If the tech bros are going to have easier jobs then the tech giants who employ them will become richer. I want the american people to see some of that enrichment that they themselves produced by generating a portion of the training data.

If ai is going to burn down the planet then the person I want on the board to help with decision making is the government. They will be a force to say no we will only use renewables, or that we have to source water sustainably, etc.

The government does not have a profit motive, if they did taxes would be maximized, and while the government's motive isn't exactly pure at least it is somewhat influenced by the people through democracy.

If the only alternative is ai companies doing whatever they want then this is way better. If your alternative is shut down ai companies I don't think that's possible, the cat is out of the bag, this genie can't be put back in the bottle.

Stocks cannot be negative. I get the hate surrounding AI companies, but the resistance to this idea makes no sense to me.

In my opinion the number should be closer to 50% instead of 5% - but in both cases if AI companies are the biggest bubble in the world and go bankrupt then the government is left with a $0 value stock they didn't give any money for...

If ai companies don't go bankrupt then any returns they do generate go to the government which can be used to provide public services and offset the average Americans tax bill, thus passing any potential gains from ai to the people who generated the training data for them in the first place.

There's a few ways I could think of to connect these things together

1. Perfect VPN opsec is actually pretty hard to achieve, if you ever used the account when VPN wasn't working they could get your local IP. Could be ipv6 wasn't going through VPN, VPN wasn't turned back on after a shutdown, VPN leaked IP, etc.
2. Reddit likely has a unique browser fingerprint for you, if you used the same device to access two different accounts one on VPN and one off VPN they could still tie them together with a matching unique fingerprint across both accounts.
3. If your buddy was using one of your devices same thing as above.

With perfect VPN usage and perfect opsec and complete separation of devices and accounts it is very unlikely they would have been able to correlate this activity.

It is quite hilarious that you are so smug and judgemental about someone you claim is "just wholesale making shit up"

When you claim:

The issue is this "fundraiser" existed prior to the shooting and is not for legal defenses.

The op's article clearly states that only funds received AFTER the shooting are not to be used according to the judge. Funds for bail do not need to be acquired specifically for legal defense, in fact him receiving funds from his fans after the shooting most likely for his legal defense is expressly WHY the judge is saying they can't be used.

I guess I shouldn't have given you all this valuable information unless you "asked nicely" first. Silly me.

I just want to start by saying I think you are coming at this in good faith.

I disagree that it is as cut and dry as "private citizens cannot [own land]" from the link you posted a private citizen cab get a land grant for 70 years to do with the property what they will. Now sure it might be said that this isn't technically owning the land but it is nearly indistinguishable from a normal American with a house.

And if we want to get real pedantic the fact that the USA can eminent domain your land kind of shows that you are just leasing it as well. This is a bit of an exaggeration since most land has not and likely will not be taken, but the point is it CAN.

I'm not super familiar with how inheritance works in China but if you can will your property to a relative and then they get a fresh 70 year grant then this is basically indefinite. Now maybe that's where the difference is if you can't do that, but that's not what I think of when I'm thinking of "ownership"

A direct quote from that source:

While there is no clear evidence yet that Tyler Robinson was a formal member of Fuentes’ community, a Facebook photo suggests he engaged with Groyper memes.

I wouldn't say that is conclusive he was a groyper. Seems we still don't have enough evidence to figure out what his leanings where

I would make the argument that it could actually be a means to align with affordable housing (although that would likely be very difficult in this current housing market). Managing a property is a service, you have to manage vacancies, repairs, rent collection, etc.

If you don't offload this to a management company and do it all yourself it is technically feasible to make a profit from the labor of managing the property even when charging below market rate for the property (difficult to do right now, but after owning the property for a period of time definitely possible).

If you were to do this you would be directly combatting the affordable housing problem by introducing competition at a lower price (it would be a drop in the ocean, but it would be fighting for affordable housing).