3 ms·

Too big to fail is an oxymorononic statement. Bailing out bad businesses retains those that poorly managed them. Those organizations should of been sold off to

Too big to fail is an oxymorononic statement. Bailing out bad businesses retains those that poorly managed them. Those organizations should of been sold off to remove the bad actors. AI is currently a sunk cost to the US stock industry that is repeating the bad actor scenario. Not a single AI company is profitable and none of them produce deterministic nor cost effective solutions Microsoft's statment of using AI to find the most resource intensive applications being ran highlights this. Task Manager does the same thing and does not need a server farm for training. It also uses MB of RAM vs GB. If manufacturing had the same error rate in production as AI, those plants would of went out of business. Both industries heavy use legal bribes, donations. Politicians will gladly bail them out to take ℅ of the cut in bribes. Too big to fails are false claims to retain the bad actors that fund politicians. Bad actors need to fail so the good ones can properly operate. Too big to fail is also allowing large corporations to skirt copyright laws. You or I seeding TB of copyright content would be thrown in jail. Too big to fail is rebranding of legalizing corruption.

andsoitis 3mo ago
> Both industries heavy use legal bribes, donations. Politicians will gladly bail them out to take ℅ of the cut in bribes. Are you saying that it is likely that at some point in the not too distant future, OpenAI and Anthropic will need bailout-size cash infusions from the US Government to continue existence and that the US government will do it and not face severe political consequences? I just don't think that chain of events is likely. The current administration pays very close attention voter sentiment.
- drdexebtjl 3mo ago
  It wouldn’t be the first time the US government made expensive and unpopular moves in the name of national security and walked away largely unscathed.
  - andsoitis 3mo ago
    That’s not a convincing argument that it is likely to happen in this case. For me to be more convinced, it would be helpful understand what similar specific example you have in mind that points to such likelihood in this case.
- dataflow 3mo ago
  > Are you saying that it is likely that at some point in the not too distant future, OpenAI and Anthropic will need bailout-size cash infusions from the US Government to continue existence and that the US government will do it and not face severe political consequences? Didn't they say this themselves? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/tech/openai-backtracks-government-support-chip-investments https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/tech/openai-backtracks-go... > The current administration pays very close attention voter sentiment. Is that how the Anti-Weaponization Fund came about?
  - andsoitis 3mo ago
    > Didn't they say this themselves OpenAI backtracked, according to the article you linked to. > Is that how the Anti-Weaponization Fund came about? It hasn’t come about has it? It was blocked. Besides, I don’t see the connection with the topic at hand.
- watwut 3mo ago
  > The current administration pays very close attention voter sentiment. In which alternative universe? The amount of bribery and self-enrichment is staggering. The treatment of the war is mind boggling. The actual political moves seem to be designed to punish disloyal republicans rather then win more votes.

andsoitis 3mo ago

> Both industries heavy use legal bribes, donations. Politicians will gladly bail them out to take ℅ of the cut in bribes. Are you saying that it is likely that at some point in the not too distant future, OpenAI and Anthropic will need bailout-size cash infusions from the US Government to continue existence and that the US government will do it and not face severe political consequences? I just don't think that chain of events is likely. The current administration pays very close attention voter sentiment.

drdexebtjl 3mo ago
It wouldn’t be the first time the US government made expensive and unpopular moves in the name of national security and walked away largely unscathed.
- andsoitis 3mo ago
  That’s not a convincing argument that it is likely to happen in this case. For me to be more convinced, it would be helpful understand what similar specific example you have in mind that points to such likelihood in this case.
dataflow 3mo ago
> Are you saying that it is likely that at some point in the not too distant future, OpenAI and Anthropic will need bailout-size cash infusions from the US Government to continue existence and that the US government will do it and not face severe political consequences? Didn't they say this themselves? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/tech/openai-backtracks-government-support-chip-investments https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/tech/openai-backtracks-go... > The current administration pays very close attention voter sentiment. Is that how the Anti-Weaponization Fund came about?
- andsoitis 3mo ago
  > Didn't they say this themselves OpenAI backtracked, according to the article you linked to. > Is that how the Anti-Weaponization Fund came about? It hasn’t come about has it? It was blocked. Besides, I don’t see the connection with the topic at hand.
watwut 3mo ago
> The current administration pays very close attention voter sentiment. In which alternative universe? The amount of bribery and self-enrichment is staggering. The treatment of the war is mind boggling. The actual political moves seem to be designed to punish disloyal republicans rather then win more votes.