How public good can trump private profit
Image: Mariia Shalabaieva @maria_shalabaieva via Unsplashed
Last month independent US Senator Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, introduced a bill called the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. It proposes that the government take a 50% share in leading AI companies, and pay a 5% percent annual dividend directly to citizens. His argument is that since AI models are built on collective human intelligence, everyone should share in their bounty.
Considering that the four leading developers of frontier AI models – Alphabet, Meta, Anthropic and OpenAI – are together worth about $7.7 trillion, the impact would be significant. To put this into perspective, this amount exceeds the annual economic output of Germany, Europe’s largest economy, and is more than twice the combined GDP of all 54 African countries.
It would also provide a measure of democratic control and oversight over AI companies through an independent commission nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate that “would use voting shares in companies to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them”.
Clearly, a law that would force the wholesale redistribution of private property is never going to fly in the US. But the idea of providing for public benefits from AI has gained bi-partisan support, with backing from both progressive democrats and the Trump administration.
In February 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund “to maximize the stewardship of our national wealth for the sole benefit of American citizens”.
Vice President JD Vance recently stressed Trump was not advocating redistributing the obscene wealth concentrated in hands of a few tech oligarchs. Rather, he wanted to provide a stake for everybody in the new AI-driven future – particularly for AI workers themselves. “I think labour unions are a very important model here,” he told UK podcaster Steven Bartlett. “You want the worker whose life has been transformed by this technology to have a seat at the table.”
The AI industry appears amenable. OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has suggested granting the US government a 5 percent stake in his firm, according to the Financial Times. In an industrial policy document published in April, OpenAI called for the creation of “a Public Wealth Fund that provides every citizen – including those not invested in financial markets – with a stake in AI-driven economic growth” with returns “distributed directly to citizens”. In a policy brief six months earlier Anthropic endorsed similar ideas
Sceptics are not convinced, and with good reason.
Two tech academics, Nathan Sanders and Bruce Schneier, believe public influence over how AI is developed should be applied in the same way that governments intervene to ensure airlines and drug companies balance profitability with public interest and safety. They argue public ownership would essentially incentivise governments to serve corporate interests when adopting policies and regulations, allow workers and users to be exploited, and encourage adoption regardless of appropriateness or safety. “This is not an effective way to influence corporations to act in the public interest. In fact, it makes corporate influence on the government more likely.”
Similar concerns were expressed by Angela Huyue Zhang, professor of law at the University of Southern California, who warns once a government takes a stake in an AI lab, “it creates a conflict of interest. It may think twice before intervening aggressively against the company, whether on safety, antitrust, content regulation, or other grounds.” Bloomberg Business Week editor Brad Stone shares these misgivings. He argues lawmakers would be reluctant to pass regulatory legislation in the best interests of society if it risks hampering their growth. This “may be one reason for Altman, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and their peers to so eagerly volunteer their stock”, he surmises.
Clearly a new model will need to be found. One worth exploring – as Sanders, Schneier and Zhang argue, pointing to similar developments in China and the EU – is to expand public sector involvement and investment in AI development for the public good. In the long run, as the AI revolution threatens to widen global disparities in power and wealth, this could prove the most effective way to prioritise public interest over private profit .
