The public would like more then 51% - controlling interest please.

..... Communism with Chinese Characteristics comes to Amerika.

What we get from the ownership will just about pay our electric bill once all the data centers are built.

Sanders is on the wrong track here

profitable, and how this talk is largely a way of avoiding regulation as people sour on AI:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221287067

all apparently been designed to distract from the harm AI does.

Ten years ago, in a New Yorker profile, he talked about UBI becoming necessary as AI replaces jobs, but suggested it might have to be as low as only a few thousand dollars a year, because with AI we'd probably have fusion, making power practically free, and that in turn would somehow make food almost free (he's more than a little hazy on agriculture), and people would just get education from their smartphones. He admitted he hadn't calculated housing cost, and maybe doing part of the profile interviews at a Silicon Valley mansion made that harder to calculate.

Then he came up with the idea of everyone getting UBI via crypto payments after first getting their eyeballs scanned by a company he owned, with that scan also becoming their worldwide digital ID.

Then he talked about everyone being given 1 eight-billionth share of the world's compute, which they could sell or use themselves.

as controlling oligarch/corporate conglomerate ownership increasingly asserts their influence over how it's managed for the benefit of AI at the expense of the public interest.

Just as they watered down social security ever since 1975 when they the capped the FICA tax limit adjusted automatically every year based on the national average wage index instead of a median wage index.

That's a slow kill strategy, of course the best public interest would be eliminating the FICA cap entirely.

Thanks for the thread Omaha Steve

controlling interest to be even remotely worth it.