• jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days 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.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Why does it matter that Altman fails when there are so many other companies waiting to take their place?

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      it actually creates symetry for risk/reward, but it does incentivize giving skynet contracts with argument that people get 50% of the proceeds from skynet abuse.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Doesn’t really create symmetry for risk/reward, because, for example, the corporate leadership decides how much to pay out to investors versus how much they spend including a lot of their own compensation.

        So they can carve out the reward as they see fit, but if things go bad they can lean on the public investment as leverage to get bailouts.