OpenAI's proposal to give the government a 5% stake is highly risky. While distributing it to households is viable, giving it directly to the government is 'ruinous,' inviting endless political capture and governance nightmares without generating public goodwill.

New technologies perceived as job-destroying, like AI, face significant public and regulatory risk. A powerful defense is to make the general public owners of the technology. When people have a financial stake in a technology's success, they are far more likely to defend it than fight against it.

Proposals for the government to take equity stakes in AI firms are fundamentally about wealth redistribution to counter AI's disruptive effects. They serve as a potential infrastructure for Universal Basic Income (UBI) by creating a mechanism to distribute AI-generated profits directly to citizens.

Policy expert Dean Ball argues that proposals for distributing AI lab equity to the public are not about optimizing economic value, which is already created via consumer surplus. Instead, they address a crisis of institutional legitimacy, giving average people a direct stake and sense of participation in a future they feel excluded from.

To counter AI-driven inequality, Vance advocates for 'predistribution'—giving workers a direct stake and a seat at the bargaining table in AI companies. He is skeptical of 'redistribution' (tax and transfer), arguing it creates dependency rather than providing genuine agency and a stake in society.

Instead of cash handouts (UBI), democratizing ownership of AI companies gives people a stake in the means of production. This aligns incentives and allows the public to benefit from wealth creation, not just receive subsidies, as AI transforms the economy.

A proposal for the U.S. government to acquire equity in major AI labs is gaining unusual bipartisan support. Figures like Bernie Sanders (left) and Steve Bannon (populist right) are both advocating for the government to take a stake, aligning under the idea of distributing AI's economic benefits directly to citizens.

To address public anxiety over AI-driven wealth inequality, a radical idea is gaining support from opposite ends of the American political spectrum. Both progressive Bernie Sanders and conservative Donald Trump suggest the public should hold shares in top AI companies to redistribute the technology's economic gains.

To combat public fear of AI-driven wealth disparity, the tech industry should champion direct equity ownership for all citizens over UBI. Creating a fund like 'Invest America' that gives everyone a stake in major tech companies would align public interest with technological progress, unlike UBI which can strip away purpose.