I'm confused about language, as "loans" to me do not equal "bailout". The equating of the two seems odd, as many government incentives use loans that pay back with high interest, so governments MAKE money on those kinds of deals.
Also clear that the 1.4T figure includes some accounting for spend that does not come directly from OpenAI (grid/power/data infra for example). Obviously some government involvement is needed, but more at EPA/State/Local level to fast track construction permits, more-so than financial help from Treasury.
I'm confused why this generates such sensational headlines.
I'm with you on that - people use the wrong terms. Bailouts are supporting things like GM or failing banks because the government is worried about GM workers losing jobs or bank depositors losing money.
Altman's 1.4T isn't like that - it's a proposed new investment in stuff that doesn't exist yet and there would be no job losses or the like if it fails to exist. They have been talking about potential government support for the new ventures, partly to keep up with China which uses similar government support. I'm not sure if it's a good idea but it would not be a bailout, more a subsidy.
This is the same kind of bullshit rationalization they used to say that the bank bailouts of 2009 weren't really bank bailouts.
They were bank bailouts.
Unsecured government loans are either bailouts, entitlements in disguise, or (usually misguided) attempts at broad economic stimulus. This definitely isn't either of the latter two.
Also clear that the 1.4T figure includes some accounting for spend that does not come directly from OpenAI (grid/power/data infra for example). Obviously some government involvement is needed, but more at EPA/State/Local level to fast track construction permits, more-so than financial help from Treasury.
I'm confused why this generates such sensational headlines.