3 ms·

This doesn't solve any of the problems. It's not a 19th century factory running on leather-belt-harnessed steam engines. There aren't 10,000 workers. There are

This doesn't solve any of the problems. It's not a 19th century factory running on leather-belt-harnessed steam engines. There aren't 10,000 workers. There are at most a few dozen "individual-contributor-level workers". You're still concentrating all of that onto a really small number of people. Who, incidentally, have demonstrated time and again that their behavior tends to imitate the big powerful robber barons' behavior of old (because there are relatively few of them and no one to dilute the aggregate back to your preferred leftist mindsets). You've really lost the plot.

palmotea 2mo ago
> You've really lost the plot. I think you did. > There aren't 10,000 workers. There are at most a few dozen "individual-contributor-level workers". You're still concentrating all of that onto a really small number of people. Who, incidentally, have demonstrated time and again that their behavior tends to imitate the big powerful robber barons' behavior of old You're not clear here, but it sounds like you're talking about employees of OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. But then you misunderstood me. I was talking about the workers who use the tools those companies make. In the plan in my comment * OpenAI, Anthropic, employees would be working for a mutual, as in a customer-owned company. Those "few dozen" robber barons wannabes wouldn't be getting any big payout. * The workers I was referring to were all the employees who use AI tools to perform a job. They would be the only customers of OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. in their personal capacities. Their employers would not be allowed to buy those tools directly, they'd have to hire a worker to use them, who could then capture a lot of the value instead of the company.