On June 1st Senator Bernie Sanders published an op-ed in the New York Times titled “AI is a Public Resource. You Should Own Half of It.” The piece introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act proposing a one-time 50% tax on stock rather than profits of the largest AI companies including OpenAI Anthropic and xAI. Under the proposal shares would be directed into a government sovereign wealth fund giving the public voting rights and equal board representation at each company. Sanders framed it this way:
The foundation of AI is our collective and human intelligence. The books, the songs, the journalism, scientific research code essentially taken from some of the wealthiest people in the world.
Host Jason Calacanis introduced the discussion by pointing out the wide political appeal of the idea.
This pitch unifies Bernie even Steve Bannon people in the administration. Trump himself loves the Sovereign Wealth Fund.
David Sacks was direct in his opposition while still acknowledging the political logic behind the proposal. He said:
I’m not in favor of Bernie’s proposal because it’s a straight-up taking of property and I think that would set a very bad precedent. You just cannot do that. However I do have sympathy for where it’s coming from and I understand and could support some sort of more voluntary means of allowing the public to participate in this.
He expanded on the conditions that made the idea resonate politically:
You’ve got all these AI CEOs telling the public that they’re going to basically put half of them out of work. They trained their models using all of humanity’s collective knowledge that was basically assembled over hundreds or even thousands of years. Humans put it on the internet for free. Everyone made their contribution. They certainly didn’t do that thinking they’re going to put themselves out of work. Ordinary Americans are going to say, ‘What’s in this deal for me?’
By the end of the episode Sacks appeared more open to compromise:
I think I may be okay with Bernie’s idea in the event that it’s a public benefit corporation that says it’s going to cause major job displacement that trained for free on humanity’s knowledge but gatekeeps and refuses to give back. Maybe it should be 75%. I don’t know.
Chamath Palihapitiya went further arguing the underlying concern has merit:
Bernie does have a good point which is they train for free on all of our knowledge but they’re gatekeeping the output so that their competitors which is a very large set of people cannot use it. And that seems wrong.
He also suggested a more aggressive negotiating position:
If it were me running the sovereign wealth fund yeah I’d probably own 75% of these companies when I was done. But that’s me and I can negotiate. I don’t think Bernie can negotiate out of a paper bag.
Calacanis closed with a blunt reflection on the debate:
Part of me wants to agree with Bernie and just say take their stuff. I’m so tired of defending these people. It’s a tax on poor judgment because they’ve been out there teaching the public that what they do is harmful for years.
