Vermont Senator Bernie Saunders is all aboard the AI train.

Artificial intelligence will almost certainly be the most transformational technology in the history of the world. It will profoundly affect the life of every man, woman and child in our country. It will bring — and is already bringing — unimaginable changes to our economy, our democracy, our emotional well-being, our environment and how we educate and raise our children. Further, there is a very real fear that as A.I. becomes smarter than humans it could eventually function independently, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

If one considers the annoyance of AI engaging in verbose responses to basic questions, mediocre creation of content or hallucination of facts the “most transformational technology in the history of the world,” then he’s got a point. But Bernie being Bernie, his concern isn’t so much about it becoming “smarter than humans,” which might not take much effort, but with a few tech titans making bank on it.

The question, then, is not whether A.I. will change the world. It will. The question is: Who will own and control that future? Who will benefit from it, and who will be hurt by it? Will A.I. be used to make life better for working families? Will it enrich our quality of life? Will it help us eliminate poverty, extend life expectancies and solve the climate crisis? Or will the future of humanity be determined by a handful of billionaires who have promoted and developed A.I., with virtually no democratic input, who stand to become even richer and more powerful than they are today?

That is the choice before us.

The argument is that AI didn’t arise in a vacuum, but from the content created by humans over the course of our existence. Without our content, there would be nothing for Large Language Models to learn from.

A.I. is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations.

And since AI Oligarchs didn’t pay for the privilege of stealing humanity’s content, they are free-riding to untold fortunes on humanity’s coattails. He’s got a point. But Bernie being Bernie, he takes a leap into the rationale for his solution.

Since A.I. is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity.

All of us learn from the collective knowledge of humanity, albeit some better than others. We read books and learn. We see images and learn. We engage in discussion and learn. Does that mean everything we accomplish “must benefit humanity” as attributed to AI? From Bernie’s perspective, maybe, even if Bernie won’t share his houses with the poor unwashed. But I digress.

What would Bernie do about it? Well, he has a plan.

That is why I will soon be introducing the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. This legislation would give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest A.I. companies in our country. How? It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the stock.

The notion of a confiscatory tax, rationalized on the basis of AI companies making too damn much money for their owners, is very Bernie. The product is so valuable that the government should be entitled to seize it. After all, it’s unfair that the people who created this value should get filthy rich when it derives from the whole of human experience. We’re human too, so why do they get all the lucre?

But what would this accomplish? Bernie offers two outcomes to benefit humanity.

If passed, this legislation would do two crucial things. First, it would give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology. No longer would the future of A.I. and the transformation of human life that it will bring be dictated by a handful of Big Tech oligarchs. The federal government would have the power, through its voting shares and an equal representation on each company’s board, to block decisions that hurt our citizens and to push for policies that help them.

This argument suffers from the same problem as criminalizing hate speech. Whoever is in power at any given moment gets to decide what words are hate, and would be empowered to decide how to use the destructive force of AI. Bernie presumes this exercise of power would be salutary, would block decisions that hurt our citizens. Has he not been paying attention? What hurts and what helps, like one of Trump’s favorite words, “Beautiful,” is in the eye of the beholder. Does Bernie want Trump’s version of helpful? Does anyone want Bernie’s version either?

Second, this legislation would guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by A.I. are used to improve the lives of all of us — not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer. If the big A.I. companies continue to grow as rapidly as many analysts expect, then the value of the sovereign wealth fund will grow as well — and the benefits to the American people will grow along with it.

Functional economics has never been one of Bernie’s strengths. The “trillions of dollars” would be tied up in the 50% of company stock held by the government. To take the money and spend it for the benefit of the American people means to sell the stock, which would both reduce its value if it was dumped on the market and reduce the ownership share and board decision-making power. You can have one or the other, not both.

Bernie compares the benefit to Alaska’s sovereign wealth fund for its oil revenues. Of course, oil is a commodity and selling it produces revenues, which can then be distributed to the public. AI is not like oil, and its value will not be derived from selling it as a commodity. Indeed, as transformational as it may be, it’s unlikely to be a revenue producer. Lots of people are using AI now. Are you paying for it? If you had to pay for it, would you pay as much as you pay now to use actual people to do the job? The efficacy of AI is that it’s cheap and fast. Like most tech advancements, profit remains a mystery to be unraveled in the future.

There is nothing wrong with Bernie, not to mention others in government, giving AI a great deal more thought than just taking a mindless laissez fair approach, but like so many things that present difficult, conflicting problems, remember the syllogism.

Something must be done.
This is something.
This must be done.

Must something be done? Perhaps, but that doesn’t make this the right something. If you don’t believe me, just ask ChatGPT.