To the Editor:
Re “A.I. Belongs to the People, Not to Billionaires,” by Bernie Sanders (Opinion guest essay, June 3):
Senator Sanders argues that “the people” should be compensated for their contributions in training artificial intelligence and have “a direct role in determining the future of this technology.” But a federal sovereign wealth fund, which he proposes, is a disguise for more government control and can be supported only by those who think the government knows best.
He points to sovereign wealth funds built on oil revenues as a model. But oil and A.I. are fundamentally different. While oil is a finite natural resource, A.I. is an evolving technology whose value depends on continued innovation and investment. You cannot regulate a breakthrough the way you regulate a barrel of crude.
Mr. Sanders says his proposal would give Americans a stake in the future of A.I. In practice, it would give that stake to the government. Ownership and decision-making rights would revert to public officials. The answer for a prosperous future is not concentrated government power.
Mario Ottero
Washington
The writer is the emergent technology policy analyst at Americans for Prosperity.
To the Editor:
Senator Bernie Sanders’s proposal to give the public an ownership stake in America’s top A.I. companies is quite alarming. He is not simply advocating a sovereign wealth fund that would help the public capture the benefits of A.I.-generated growth. Those funds normally take small stakes in many companies; Mr. Sanders wants the government to take a major stake in industry leaders, giving it both a share of profits and the power to dictate the company’s behavior.
Unlike the normal left-of-center policies Republicans misconstrue as socialism, government ownership of private enterprise is the textbook definition of it. And how do we know it will stop with A.I.? Mr. Sanders’s claim that the government deserves a stake in companies “built on the collective knowledge” could apply to any business that iterates on government-funded research or uses public infrastructure — which is ultimately almost all of them.
The timing of the proposal is particularly perplexing. Donald Trump has already taken direct stakes in some 20 companies, including U.S. Steel and Intel, in return for favorable policy decisions. Do American leftists really want to suggest officially giving his proto-authoritarian regime control of our most influential businesses? It’s a dangerous, half-baked proposal that no liberal should support.
Ben Ritz
Arlington, Va.
The writer is the vice president for policy development at the Progressive Policy Institute.
To the Editor:
Senator Bernie Sanders argues for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. This misstates the purpose of these funds and the reasons that countries such as Norway, which Mr. Sanders mentioned, created their funds.
Norway’s fund was created to avoid what economists call “the Dutch disease,” which occurs when a surge in natural resource exports causes a nation’s currency to appreciate so much that traditional exports become uncompetitive. The fund absorbs the purchases and currency flows and redeploys the capital in a measured and gradual way so that the inflows do not dislocate the economy.
It is easy to look at the trillion-dollar funds of Saudi Arabia or Singapore with envy, but their funds act as a cushion for countries with more wealth than their economies can absorb. The United States, by contrast, is a large country with the deepest capital markets in the world to help fund major expenditures.
Mr. Sanders is right to be concerned about economic losses accruing to ordinary Americans because of A.I., but wrong in his solution.
Julian Graham
Washington
Trump’s Enablers
Many of the depredations that President Trump has committed during his second term would not have been possible without the support of these shameless enablers.
History will not treat these officials kindly.
Michael Silk
Laguna Woods, Calif.
