/AI19h ago

David Sacks warns Bernie Sanders's proposal for 50% government ownership of AI developers will create state-controlled regulatory cartels

Sacks compares the resulting state control to China's social credit system.

521134.4K
Original post
Peter Wildeford🇺🇸🚀@peterwildeford#1345inAI

👀

David Sacks@DavidSacks

Signs you might be trying to get your frontier AI lab nationalized:

You compare it to nukes… threaten half of white-collar jobs… warn recursive self-improvement could end humanity… then race ahead anyway.

In other words, you want the government to save us from… you.

10:41 AM · Jun 6, 2026 · 2.8K Views
Sentiment
Sentiment building, check back later.
Cluster Engagement
Posts from X
Most Activity
Most Activity
VIEWS1.6KBOOKMARKS2LIKES9RETWEETS1REPLIES4
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_ai

💯💯 David Sacks rips Bernie Sanders' 50% AI ownership plan

David Sacks@DavidSacks

While I’m no fan of socialism or arbitrary confiscations of wealth, I can see why Bernie Sanders’ proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates, including with many on the right.

The CEOs of the leading AI labs have told us repeatedly that they will cause massive job loss. This is not a story that I believe, nor does the data bear it out, but this is what they have told us. Similarly, they have hyped the risks of AI without putting an equal or greater emphasis on the benefits or readily available mitigations.

Conservatives have another fear. The employees of the leading labs claim to be philanthropic, but what we’ve seen is massive enrichment of NGOs advancing an agenda at odds with traditional values, fueling a revolution against our cities and communities. Soros-maxxing is not charity in our book.

Anthropic and OpenAI have established themselves as Public Benefit Corporations. What could be more in the public benefit than using half the wealth generated by these companies (which trained for free on the collective knowledge of humanity) to pay down the national debt? There is no ideological bias in that philanthropy.

Dario and Sam have begun to walk back their claims of massive job loss, but the damage to public trust is done, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I could almost support the Sanders proposal as a stupidity tax.

There’s just one problem. Nationalization of AI will accelerate the corporate-government fusion we’re already sliding toward. Conservatives rightly fear a Central Bank Digital Currency. They ought to be even more concerned about Central Government AI — a system with even more totalistic power over information, decision-making, and human behavior.

We saw how social media was weaponized to censor conservatives (including President Trump) in the last Democrat administration. The definition of “trust & safety” expanded to mean protecting the public from supposed psychological harms, micro-aggressions, and disinformation (you know, like hearing conservative ideas or true facts about Covid).

That “safety” agenda as applied to AI will be vastly more powerful and Orwellian. AI won’t just moderate posts; it will curate reality — with the ability to rewrite history, enforce ideological conformity, influence policy at scale, mass surveil Americans, and condition the benefits of the many systems it controls on approved behavior.

America won’t win the AI race if we beat China but end up with a CCP-style social credit system in the U.S. — and that is the danger as the government becomes more deeply involved in AI development and assumes direct ownership and control.

Conservatives are right to fear where this is all headed but ought to think more carefully about how regulations they are flirting with now (that are widely celebrated among those with a long history of lust for Big Government) will be used against them the next time a Democrat administration is in power.

2hViews 1.6KLikes 9Bookmarks 2
Conrad Barski@lisperati

@peterwildeford I guess DS and the government wants everyone to do a little dance now where we say the tech is dangerous, and then he gets to argue "we aren't putting in regulations because it's dangerous, we have to put regulations on it because people wrongly say it's dangerous"

17hViews 137
Paco@Pacoxbt

@rohanpaul_ai David sacks' critique highlights the tensions in ai policy

ownership rules could determine the pace and direction of innovation

2hViews 1