Vermont
Latest Coverage
See all articles
Will AI become a public utility?
LONDON, June 9 (Reuters) - Left-leaning U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and Republican President Donald Trump have found surprising common ground: the U.S. government should take stakes in AI companies so the public can share in the rewards. With nationalization back in vogue, turning AI firms into quasi-utilities may no longer be a pipe dream.
As investors get giddy about upcoming public share sales by the AI boom's leading names, OpenAI and Anthropic, there's more than a little anxiety about how government copes with potentially seismic changes to the economy and society from rapid automation of both white- and blue-collar jobs.
Sign up here.
The Vermont independent senator said he plans to introduce legislation creating a sovereign wealth fund to hold those stakes. He said the fund would give the public a role in determining the future of the technology and secure some of the trillions of dollars of profits for the workers most affected by it.
In times past, that idea might have ended up as a trial balloon by a firebrand politician, calculated to excite debate and little else as private enterprise and free-market thinking drowned it out.
Except Trump, and possibly even the bosses of one of the AI companies, may be thinking along the same lines.
Digital news outlet NOTUS reported last Thursday that senior U.S. officials held preliminary discussions with major AI companies about the government possibly buying shares in their firms.
The talks, which included OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, centered on having the firms voluntarily cede shares to the government. Returns on investment could then be directed to public purposes and possibly even dividends to American households, the report said.
By Friday, Trump seemed on board with that plan. "There's something very interesting about it, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public," he told reporters aboard Air Force One. "We'll look into that."
On the specifics of the Sanders idea, he was also quoted as saying he has been considering government investment in AI companies for over a year. "Where economics are concerned, we (Trump and Sanders) have things that aren't that far apart."
Whether any of this fits into Trump's executive order last year on creating a sovereign fund to house these investments is not yet clear. But the prospect of AI stakes is far from fanciful now.
FOURTH WAVE OF NATIONALIZATION
Whether that should encourage prospective shareholders or spook them is an open question.
The government stake has not done Intel's stock any harm. Since the 10% stake was taken last August, Intel has quintupled in value, transforming Washington's $10 billion investment into one worth $50 billion.
Some may argue that a government stake makes these companies too big to fail and underscores their success.
Others will see the opposite risk: that state ownership deters private capital, politicizes AI governance and leaves taxpayers exposed if public investments underperform.
But questions remain about how a government shareholder might exert its influence, either as a significant minority investor or by expanding its stake over time to wield greater control.
Only last month, Trump told Fortune magazine that he "should have asked for more" from Intel.
The Sanders plan sets an ambition. If AI and quantum computing firms are considered vital to national economic and military security, might they not eventually be seen as state-run utilities? As both Sanders and OpenAI's Altman insist, AI is a summation of collective human experience.
"Artificial intelligence was not created out of thin air. The data and language used by generative AI tools didn't just pop into Sam Altman's head or Elon Musk's imagination," wrote Sanders. "AI is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations."
But in a post-pandemic world of greater rivalry, supply chain anxieties, trade tensions and national security concerns, government control of strategic industries has become much more compelling. AI and quantum computing are increasingly being viewed as critical national resources that need protection and investment.
Beyond America's borders, the push for governments to take stakes in fast-moving tech firms may turn panicky, forcing catch-up investment in regional tech ecosystems that would not be necessary in more globalized times.
"No one really knows what such a world would look like, let alone how to keep it from tearing itself apart," he warned.
That uncertainty may be enough to push governments from regulating AI to owning a piece of it.
(The opinions expressed here are those of Mike Dolan, a columnist for Reuters.)
by Mike Dolan; Editing by Marguerita Choy
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.
Mike Dolan is Reuters Editor-at-Large for Finance & Markets and a regular columnist. He has worked as a correspondent, editor and columnist at Reuters for the past 30 years - specializing in global economics and policy and financial markets across G7 and emerging economies. Mike is based in London but has also worked in Washington DC and in Sarajevo and has covered news events from dozens of cities across the world. A graduate in economics and politics from Trinity College Dublin, Mike previously worked with Bloomberg and Euromoney and received Reuters awards for his work during the financial crisis in 2007/2008 and on Frontier Markets in 2010.