this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
822 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
85080 readers
3945 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.