An AI sovereign wealth fund isn't progressive – it's techno-imperialism

Summary of why sovereign wealth funds are generally a bad idea: the governments don’t like to do things that could potentially harm their investments. If a government has large stakes in cigarette companies, they’re going to be resistant to regulate them.

There’s also plenty of opportunity for corruption. But even with safeguards, there’s going to be opportunities to steer investment towards favored companies and industries and away from those that oppose the administration or otherwise do things the administration doesn’t like (think of efforts to divest from Israel or fossil fuel companies).

“Just invest in the S&P”. Something like this would give substantial power to the index makers. But it also gives preference to already huge companies. Small, unlisted companies would be indirectly penalized by having to compete against companies with government funding.

I can’t read the article. Do they explain how it’s more imperialist than what we have now?

Using capital ownership to distribute the proceeds of an industry whose raw material was the creative output of everyone everywhere … seems like the neatest and most obvious possible solution to AI displacement and provenance. But I can see how it might make a few dozen people less likely to be billionaires.

That paywall is techno imperialism

> A isn't X – it's Y

Well yeah, hard power is a major impetus behind sovereign wealth funds - be they ADIA, Temasek, Master Trust, QIA, PIF, CIC, etc.

But this is the world we live in.

If you put your head in the sand, you become the EU - squeezed by trade wars against China and the US with two large scale conventional wars within your near abroad.

Can´t read the article, why is this article still here? Is HN doing ads now, pfff?