You are confused, you are thinking of design patterns.

And at least two of those people are full blown sociopaths whose actions we should oppose out of principle.

"Assume that you personally took a ground breaking idea, turned it into a business, and grew it into something of massive value. You did it."

You can engage in your masturbatory fantasies of personal greatness all you want, but AI is no such thing. AI doesn't exist at all, at least in its current form, without the production of billions of people over enormous time.

"I don't care how much of a granola crunching communist philanthropist you think you are."
I suspect that's all you care about. That's all your point is, anyway. The fact is, your argument presumes a capitalist view of the world, you're merely begging the question. A capitalist would not support a plan for a country to nationalize his property, but AI billionaires are much worse than that.

"Altman is no different than you."
A more false statement has never been made. Altman is much different than the worst people here.

"Are those saying he's aligning himself for a bailout correct? I don't think that is his motivation. But, I can't tell what his motivation is."
No, but protection from failure is a side benefit. That point being made is not wrong, it's just not the reason.

The greatest power AI companies could obtain is the power of the federal government, increasingly billionaire inventors and government power are the same. The goal would be to harness that power and have it for yourself, that's Sam Altman's motivation. No company could compete with OpenAI if OpenAI was the federal government. This is what Altman wants, it's what Elon wants, it's what Trump wants. These are people entirely consumed by selfishness, so much so that they have no concern for economic principles that underlie your own selfish arguments.

What is your arbitrary, indefensible, and dumb solution then? 100%? How would "revenue linked to job loss" be determined?

As with anything involving industry and government, a primary concern is corruption. "revenue linked to job loss", "non-voting stakes", "distributing ill-gotten gains", "original rights owners", these are all opportunities for corruption. A solution that codifies the ways it will be made to fail is no solution.

That is false. Worse yet, if the USSR is anything today it is ascendent.

It's good to know your thinking on the issue ends at partisanship, though. Can save time that way.

"Sanders is angling for tax gains to help replace the taxes el Bunko has reduced on the wealthy."

Not really. Sanders has a lifetime of never doing anything beyond talking. He doesn't have specific goals and, frankly, tax/regulation reform is easier to achieve than socializing industry. Sanders is advocating for more than a new source of revenue, though what that would be is unclear as it always is with Sanders.

The way to replace taxes given to the wealthy is to tax the wealthy.

Approved, finally someone posted it.

"The point is the upcoming revolution in autonomous labor, which will turn our current financial system upside down."
It's not an "upcoming revolution" and that's not the point. "Autonomous labor" is a means to an end, the point is for very few people to own everything. Our "current financial system" is the enemy, not the thing we risk.

"It's no secret that ChatGPT is useful, and a force multiplier for productive output. "
It's no secret, but it's also no fact. It's a puked up VC sales pitch.

"...we know with certainty that our current economic system will transition into the factory robot model. "
We do not know that at all, nor is there such a thing as a "factory robot model" "economic system".

"The problem facing economists is how to transition us into that model without going through a catastrophic financial failure. An AI soverign wealth fund could be the first step towards making that transition."
LOL spoken by someone who clearly does not know what the problem is. The wealthy like the system the way it is and have seized power to accelerate it. That "catastrophic financial failure" is what they threaten if you resist their power. An "AI sovereign wealth fund" would be opposed directly by the wealthy.

My reaction too. The difference between ownership and taxation is the important thing to consider. Taxation takes benefit from success, ownership also imposes burden from failure.

Why would the public want to "offer out" grants to "Open Source development"? What is the public benefit?

Somehow I doubt any of this is true.

Hysterical the link to a source that thoroughly trounces the point being claimed. It not only demonstrates the stupidity of the lie but how unoriginal the post is. No need for bots to make an effort.

I bet your parents are proud.

Trump could not cure cancer, both because he is a moron and a sociopath. The hypothetical is absurd, it relies on an assumption that, if true, would entirely change everyone's opinion about the rapist and child molester, including yours.

Interesting, then, that after reading these comments I have noticed not "ORANGE MAN BAD" comments or defense of telecoms. It's almost as if this is a YOU problem.