That didn’t work, so now Sanders has a new idea called the “AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act,” a one-time 50% “tax” on the equity of the major artificial intelligence companies such as OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic. This, he contends, will allow American “workers” to share in the profits and create guardrails for the industry. Many conservatives seem interested in similar plans.

For starters, this “tax” is a euphemism for confiscation. As of this writing, 50% of equity in the top seven AI companies amounts to around $2.5 trillion. That number could go higher after OpenAI and Anthropic drop their initial public offerings, likely valued at over $1 trillion each. The seizure would be unprecedented.

In the age of populism, it’s probably quaint to ask under what constitutional authority Congress can unilaterally seize half of an entire industry. The takings clause requires “just compensation” for expropriated private property. Sanders offers none.

Sanders isn’t “investing” public funds into some expensive but innocuous feel-good green scheme. He wants the government to confiscate what is effectively a controlling interest in our most cutting-edge technology. Not only is the U.S. in a race against China and others to dominate that tech, but right now, AI is propelling economic growth. Depending on how you measure its impact, AI accounts for around 20%-40% of new economic activity over the past few years. It is already helping workers.

Once the government becomes the dominant shareholder with board seats and voting power, the company’s incentives will shift from technological breakthroughs and customer service to placating politicians and ideologues.

Moreover, a government that prints money and piles astonishing debt on future generations isn’t concerned about innovation or profit. Indeed, Sanders believes the profit motive is evil.

Take the publicly owned Amtrak, which largely serves well-heeled easterners shuttling people between New York and Washington. Last year, the company had an operating loss of nearly $600 million, which was a 15% improvement over the previous fiscal year. Amtrak has lost $800 million on beverage services over 10 years. And Amtrak is still a stirring success compared to the Postal Service, also owned by the “public,” which has lost $118 billion since 2007.

In any event, AI, Sanders contends, is a “public resource.” Under Marxism, the ideology that the Vermont senator subscribes to, everything is a public good. At various times during his career, Sanders has proposed nationalizing the energy, healthcare, college, housing, and internet industries.

Why? “A.I.,” Sanders wrote in the New York Times, “is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity.” It’s true, everything we create springs from the continuum of human knowledge and experience, including Sanders’s three houses. It doesn’t mean we can just take one.

Sanders grouses that tech companies “are in it for the money.” Yes, that’s the incentive structure. Creators, engineers, and investors all take risks because they want rewards if they succeed. They then take that reward and spend or invest it in other areas. That’s how the economy grows. It’s also why we lead the world in technological advancements, and it’s not even close. Once a company’s incentives shift from profit to appeasing the Sanderses of the world, our top talent might well flee to countries that allow them to chase innovations and profits.

Of course, it’s likely that some AI executives would be happy if the government took a stake in their companies. There’s no better way to ensure long-term viability than forcing taxpayers to prop up your company when things go south. And they may yet go south for AI if it fails to meet expectations.

If this socialism — or is it corporatism, or maybe light fascism? — doesn’t bother you, think of the potential for abuses of power, including the surveilling of Americans and control over data and information. If a gaggle of bureaucrats can pressure Big Tech into censoring “disinformation” and political opponents during a pandemic, what can they do when holding a giant stake in AI companies that mold our reality? If the feds have stakes in seven big AI companies, it means all of them will largely act in concert rather than compete or offer consumers varied experiences.

Sanders points to Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and Alaska’s Permanent Fund as success models for his AI confiscation scheme. But the Norway and Alaska funds, whether you believe they are good ideas or not, were built on revenues generated by natural resources that were already controlled by the state. Neither of those places seized 50% of equity in any company. They didn’t install corporate boards to dictate research priorities and decisions.

President Donald Trump, it should be noted, has done a lot to normalize the idea of government ownership in private companies. Not long ago, the president unilaterally acquired a 10% stake in the semiconductor giant Intel via CHIPS Act funding. The president holds a golden share in U.S. Steel. In virtually every one of these cases, the rationalization for taking a stake fell under the auspices of fake national emergencies. Now, AI CEOs are reportedly visiting the White House next week to discuss what Trump calls a federal government “partnership” that would allow the public to “profit in their success.”

We already do. AI tech has promising uses in healthcare, manufacturing, and defense. This tech drives economic growth and productivity. Yet, it’s also understandable that some people are fearful or hostile to new technologies that threaten to revolutionize prevailing methods of doing things.

AMERICA’S REAL AI ADVANTAGE IS DEEP THINKING. WE’RE EDUCATING IT AWAY

Sanders, for instance, argues that robotics and AI exist “to replace human labor.” Every advancement since the wheel has replaced some form of human labor. Most often, it augments work and makes it more productive and less backbreaking.

Jobs will be lost to AI, and new ones will pop up. If the state wants to regulate the reach of robotics and AI, it certainly has the authority to do so. And maybe it should. But seizing the technology for the state is just an authoritarian power grab.