this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
143 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26396 readers
2442 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 29 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Straight up, it would be mortally dangerous for federal US reps to bailout tech. The industry is wildly unpopular, has openly threatened labourers with forced redundancy, polluted and\or poisoned vulnerable communities, and houses some of the most famous billionaires in the country. This is not an industry that thousands of blue-collar workers depend on for wages and produces products that people need to survive. Also, the US state is subject to the most open resistance and condemnation it has had since the Civil Rights Era (even privileged groups find the erasure of wealth disparity appealing now too).

Seriously, I think if this were to happen, it would result in violent retaliation.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 3 points 39 minutes ago

Man then I hope it bust soon. Because they want build 27 AI data centers in Oklahoma. If this happens say goodbye to our water supply. But revolt what we need.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Rising energy costs are can be blamed on AI too.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

Also, it's not even just AI actually using more energy, it's also more capacity being constructed in anticipation of it. The upshot is, even if the demand from AI goes away the higher costs would remain because all that extra infrastructure still needs to be paid for.

[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

OFC we’re going to bail them out

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago

It's what 401Ks crave.

[–] Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I can't see a scenario where a bailout doesn't happen but I also don't see it being beneficial if a bailout does occur.

While the automakers bailout boosted an industry that was on major trouble, they were able to return to profitability in the end and pay back those loans right? The whole A.I. industry has never turned a profit, so even if we bail them out, the fundamental model as it is now would just revert to a known unprofitable state.

You could argue that you should bail out the hardware companies so you don't cripple the chip manufacturers, and foundries, but there is no financial benefit that I can see to bail out a llm developer. If you were going that route. I would say they have to nationalize the software companies but I don't want that being part of the government at fucking all.

[–] ButteryMonkey@piefed.social 7 points 1 hour ago

I’d argue rather than bailing out hardware and chip makers for their completely blatant fraud, they should be nationalized, and llm companies should just be left to fail or fined into failure for their part in the fraud. It’s not like other unrelated groups aren’t working on their own models anyway.

Agreed, the bailout should be targeted and very selective. If OpenAI can't survive, then fine, let it 'die'. It won't actually die, it'll get scooped up by someone else and their assets will be picked up by one of the surviving companies. It's an interesting way to innovate... burn money to push the industry further along, knowing full well that you'll never turn a profit, but that a future company will end up with your tech and they might eventually make a profit.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 5 points 1 hour ago

Good. Let the ones who can, survive. Not be swarmed by zombies.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

I... actually disagree with this even though I don't want to.

Yes, fuck OpenAI and Meta.

But the problem is that the government has been 500% enabling this "bubble". Basically any governent grant for the past five or six years has more or less required "AI" to be front and center. The more senior folk have generally been good about "I am doing Machine Learning enhanced construction of that office building, sure, whatever" but this, in turn, has more or less gutted academia as more and more programs have essentially been built around providing what funding is literally asking for. Flipping NOBODY thinks "I am a prompt engineer" is worth anything but scorn and mockery. But when those grants and CFPs basically require a prompt engineer on the proposal to have any chance of being accepted...

It's easy to say "you should have known better and not lied to us" but... they were telling the lies that were demanded of them. And just cutting them free and letting capitalism sort it out is going to mean pretty much an entire generation lost and countless companies down the drain as well. Which... also won't be all that useful for getting people healthcare.

Similarly, Jensen is a prick (and always has been but...). But if the rug gets pulled and the "bubble pops"? nVidia is not a US company but it is essential to the US economy and capabilities. We can't afford to let that go the way of Intel.

Do I think giant checks should be written? No. But we need a LOT of transition grants and programs and possibly outright stimulus checks so that the entire tech and research and science industries can pivot to what is being asked of them now.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 17 minutes ago

A "generation" of students aren't prompt engineers. And even if you learned one useless skill in your major during college, you still have the entire rest of the program. I haven't used many of the skills I learned in college and my industry has changed extensively since then, but learning those things contributed to a larger competency.

[–] Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I think the point is that the people should be "bailed out" before the shareholders should be. There should be a safety net in place robust enough that stupid risks like this can be allowed to fail without essentials and ordinary people being caught in the fallout.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

The problem is most Americans with retirement savings are shareholders of these tech companies whether they know it or not. My mom lost a HUGE part of her retirement savings when WorldCom went under and was never able to recover from it and is now in her mid 70s and still has to work full time. She's almost blind and can hardly walk and she's worked her whole life and tried to do everything right but her financial advisor was giving her what was thought to be good, safe advice in the early 2000s and completely changed how her twilight years are playing out.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 29 minutes ago

That sucks, but we're not a real economy if we just keep bad companies afloat because people have invested in them. We certainly don't need to filter any aid to unfortunate retirees in need through the stock market.

[–] Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 28 minutes ago* (last edited 26 minutes ago)

"Retirement savings" are a scam.

They shift the social responsibility of caring for those who cannot work for pay into a personal responsibility. Retirement should not be something that you have to save for by bending over backwards for corporate overlords to get a well-paying job and putting away a tiny share of your tiny share of the profits for later. Retirement should be part of a robust social safety net. People should be cared for in their old age (and at every age) regardless of whether they would be able to earn enough wages to put away retirement savings.

To younger generations, the idea of retirement savings is laughable. Not just because it's so far away and it's dubious whether society will even last that long, but because the social safety net is in such a bad state that able-bodied young people are suffering at a massive scale right now. We aren't even earning enough to pay our cost of living, let alone retirement savings. The system is deeply broken and needs much deeper and much wider fixes than a bailout only for those lucky enough to have retirement savings in the first place. Not to mention that most of the bailout money would go to the wealthier shareholders that have more shares.

We need the rich to be taxed much more and for money to be distributed as aid to all who need it, not just those who have retirement savings at stake.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The US in particular has embraced 401ks over pensions. The advantage is that you don't lose the past 20 years of your life if you change jobs. The bad news is that you kinda need the economy to function.

But, regardless: how would you help "the people" without "the companies"? You can give someone 2 grand but that is worth jack all when it comes to paying rent for more than a few months (or one month...) and so forth.

And it still has the fundamental problem of a complete brain and capability drain.

[–] Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 10 minutes ago) (1 children)

You can help the people by funding social programs like social security, healthcare (medicare, medicaid, and ACA subsidies or better yet a full single-payer healthcare program), food assistance, housing assistance, education, childcare, direct monetary assistance for the working class (such as tax breaks or UBI), etc.

You can put the people before the companies by not bailing out the shareholders of stupid investments like AI, by cracking down on labor violations and monopolies, and by seriously increasing taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals in order to fund the social safety net. Reducing spending on the military industrial complex would probably help too.

Neither 401ks or corporate pensions are a good solution. They place a burden that should be caught by a social safety net on each individual, and further pressure each individual to engage in capitalism in order to secure their retirement, giving more power to the employers. Retirement should not be tied to employment, same as healthcare.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 minutes ago

Okay. If we can get all of that infrastructure in place, sure.

Otherwise: A LOT of people in a LOT of industries will be suffering in the medium/long term without some form of offramp.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 5 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Why does anyone need NVIDIA? If they go busy, they sell their assets to pay their debts. Including IP.

I don't think NVIDIA will go bust. They have a product people want even without ai and have been profitable for years.

However, they will have a giant correction.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 58 minutes ago (1 children)

I don't think you'll like the orgs that buy nVidia IP. I'll give you a hint: it will be jared and the saudis.

But yes. nVidia is in a really good position to pivot. But that pivot IS important. And it is important that there are companies to actually buy those cards while they shift towards "our flagship is data center and HPC cards" rather than "our flagship is machine learning cards". Since the nVidia model is very much to manufacture as many flagships as they can and sell the factory seconds and fourths to the rest of the market.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 19 minutes ago

Or the Chinese.

However, the point is that if they go bust, the technology is not lost. Someone will buy it and will seek to profit from it in the same way that NVIDIA currently does, by selling buck loads and pushing forward with development.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I’m entirely fine with NVidia crashing and burning. I’ll bring popcorn even.