This week marks our fundraising initiative at Naked Capitalism, where 1009 supporters have already contributed to our mission of tackling corruption and exploitative practices, especially in the financial sector. We invite you to join our efforts by participating through our donation page, which provides various options for giving, including check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, and Wise. For more insights, feel free to read about the motivations behind our fundraiser, our achievements over the past year, and our current target: providing bonuses for our excellent writers.
There are two primary factors driving the AI industry’s exploration of potential nationalization. First, this may serve to distribute the losses generated by the burgeoning AI financial bubble. Second, it may involve integrating AI companies into the state machinery, embedding them within the established power structure.
The recent doomsday narratives surrounding AI pushed by industry leaders and exaggerated by the media raise eyebrows. As highlighted by Nat, this phenomenon resembles a coordinated endeavor among cutting-edge AI laboratories to legitimize anti-competitive practices while paving the way for potential bailouts. Yanis Varoufakis shares similar sentiments, minus the bailout angle.
In a recent podcast discussion with Wolfgang Münchau, Varoufakis described the appeals for government regulation made by Dario Amodei and Sam Altman as “cynical, dreadful fraud.” By promoting exaggerated fears of a “10% extinction” scenario, these leading labs aim to create cartels, leveraging antitrust laws against smaller startups while evading corporate responsibility.
This initiative may also explain the recently signed AI Accord on Superintelligence at the White House. As Nat pointed out earlier, it appears to be more of a public relations stunt aimed at regulatory capture, designed to prevent actual legal accountability while safeguarding the established AI firms rather than ensuring proper oversight.
Two trends are at play here: the exaggerated media hype around AI doomsday possibilities and a public relations initiative to accept government oversight. In reality, the acceptability of regulation is likely to be minimal; however, it may serve to prevent other market entrants, particularly foreign companies, thereby fostering a monopoly.
This situation can be interpreted as the AI industry inflating its significance—asserting that their technology is so critical it could threaten humanity—while feigning acceptance of government oversight. Consequently, when their bubble bursts, they could be deemed “too big to fail” and subsequently saved with taxpayer money. This scenario seems both feasible and cunning.
The financial challenges looming over these companies are well-documented among our readership. Once again, Nat’s insightful analysis reveals that financial analysts and informed voices are warning of excessive debt, unfulfilled potential, and speculative narratives that are reaching a breaking point.
For example, a leaked draft of Anthropic’s IPO prospectus reveals that although the revenue for 2025 is projected to exceed $4.6 billion with a growth of over 1,000%, the company also faces an $8.06 billion operating loss along with an alarming net loss of $42 billion—partly due to write-downs. Anthropic has over $518 billion in future cloud and compute commitments and primarily depends on two customers for nearly 25% of its revenue.
Similarly, while reports indicate that OpenAI’s revenue run rate is approaching $70 billion, audit figures for 2025 reveal a loss of $38.5 billion against $13.07 billion in revenue. The company is now pursuing a $30 billion bridge round at a valuation of $1.4 trillion, having postponed its IPO to 2027.
Given this context, what should we make of Alex Karp’s remark: “The only way to deal with this kind of liability is to go to the government and say, ‘Nationalize us, please’?”
Karp’s assertion is feasible, considering Palantir’s close ties with the CIA and its deep entrenchment in the U.S. surveillance and defense sectors. He is articulating a different perspective here: that the only way to shield pioneering models from accusations of intellectual property theft and limitless legal liabilities is to court nationalization.
This sentiment aligns with his perspective outlined in his book The Technological Republic. Karp argues for a paradigm shift in how technology companies view the state—not as an adversary or merely a passive client but as a partner committed to serving national interests.
One central tenet of his proposal is a revival of the “Cold War Alliance” (The New Manhattan Project). Karp advocates for a return to the civic-industrial collaboration prevalent in the mid-20th century, where leading scientists and engineers worked closely with government officials to counter “totalitarian threats.”
He draws parallels between the current AI arms race and the Manhattan Project, claiming that the survival of liberal democracies hinges on whether the West or its adversaries achieve algorithmic supremacy.
Both OpenAI and Anthropic’s founders have echoed similar sentiments. Dario Amodei’s vision has shifted from an optimistic viewpoint of nations employing numerous Nobel Prize-caliber agents to a bleak perspective where AI may threaten human existence. Sam Altman seems to share a comparable trajectory. It’s conceivable that both shift narratives based on their audience’s interests, which adds to the complexity.
This has led them to propose treating AI as a modern Manhattan Project, mirroring Alex Karp’s vision in his book, published in February 2025, well before widespread concerns of a potential AI-driven financial bubble and apocalyptic narratives gained traction. Is this mere coincidence?
The tech industry, particularly the “Magnificent Seven” and the AI sector, operates much like a cartel. While they compete against each other, they simultaneously engage in lobbying efforts that benefit them collectively. Their dominance in both hardware and software has rendered them a new form of industrial elite.
I have previously noted that this elite tend to know one another and share similar environments and ideologies, despite personal differences. This was especially evident during the trial between Elon Musk and Sam Altman, as well as with the “revelation” of Peter Thiel’s so-called “secret society.” This new elite is striving to solidify its position within the upper echelons of systemic power, explaining why figures like J.D. Vance, with ties to Thiel, have achieved prominence.
Their objectives align in many respects, even if each specializes in different sectors. Central to their understanding is a shared belief that “democracy is no longer compatible with freedom,” as Thiel asserted in 2009 (freedom for whom, remains a pertinent question). During his university days, Thiel launched a magazine called The Stanford Review, supported with funding from Irving Kristol, a foundational figure in neoconservatism.
The technologies bred from the influence of Thiel and the broader PayPal Mafia, including Elon Musk, reflect an agenda aimed at fostering a technocratic government, extensive surveillance, absolute financial control, and automated warfare. I’m not suggesting that every founder in Silicon Valley is complicit in these machinations, nor that all their innovations serve these purposes. However, as a collective, this elite appears to converge around similar themes.
So how does this connect to nationalization? There are two angles to consider. The first is an effort to shield their companies from looming threats within the AI and tech sectors, potentially aiming for a public bailout. The second angle involves a further step in integrating their technology with state operations—not merely as instruments for the state but as integral components of the state itself, thereby entrenching their influence within the higher echelons of systemic power and thwarting any movements that could displace them (an outcome the founders of OpenAI fearfully anticipate). It’s plausible that both interpretations hold true at once.
Conclusion
In summary, as the debate around nationalization in the AI sector unfolds, it becomes increasingly intertwined with the interests of the tech elite. The blending of technology and government oversight raises critical questions about accountability and the future trajectory of our socio-political landscape. This scenario invites us to ponder the broader implications of allowing technological advancements to dictate state policy, and the ethical considerations that arise therein.
