He's advocating for the government seizing ownership of the means of production without compensation. That sounds pretty communist to me.

I'm not proposing anything. I don't think it's the government's remit to be honest. But government seizing the means of production is literally the definition of communism.

There is a line between tax and unlawful taking. The constitution forbids taking of property without due process or compensation. No, the government can't just take whatever it likes from anyone and call it a tax.

Taxes generally demand payment in the form of general assets, but taking targets specific identified property. Likewise taxes are raised from a general category whereas taking singles out one or a few properties. Now if it was just the targeting of AI companies you could argue it's a one-time AI tax rather than singling out those companies for taking. But once you state that the tax must be paid by shares (and not just assets equal to 50% of market cap) that looks less like a tax and more like appropriation of equity for public good without compensation.

There are other vulnerabilities too - income taxes are explicitly exempted from apportionment. This "tax" would probably run afoul of apportionment.

Taking 50% of a few valuable companies for no compensation is just expropriation. Not that this has political legs, but even if it did, expect an enormous fight. The more obviously legal (and stupendously expensive) route would be eminent domain.

Shouldn't be a problem, as AI companies expropriated knowledge and jobs.

Opus 4.7 (haven't tried 4.8) just really struggles writing correct code for complicated (i.e. valuable) work. I can handle architecture, which takes <1% of my time anyway. But writing code that's wrong is a cardinal sin. I've had much more luck with GPT 5.5 so far.

You know what they say, nature abhors colossal tanks of high-explosive.

Ukraine is still fighting. We don't need to send troops. We just need to keep sending weapons (Trump stopped this)

You're probably thinking about jevons paradox. But you slightly mis-stated. It is the phenomenon that increasing the efficiency of resource consumption can end up increasing total consumption.

As you stated it, it would merely be a property of (nearly) all demand curves. Jevons paradox only happens sometimes. It isn't a law.

An example of where it stopped happening is with gasoline in developed countries. Cars having better fuel efficiency doesn’t make me drive further to the grocery store or work.

Generally when someone replaces their vehicle the new one is more fuel efficient than the old one even if I bought the same car.

Why do we need to quantify an exact quota to qualify as well thought out political thought? Some people think about this issue from the basis of fundamental freedoms. Innocent, productive people deserve the opportunity to move where they obtain the most prosperity.

If I advocated abolition in the 19th century, it would be missing the point to turn around and say "oh yeah? And how many slaves would you like to free per year, and what effects do you expect that to have? Include examples of past slave rebellions"

The citizenry would probably fare no worse than with the arrival of the Irish, the Italians, or the Germans. What are you expecting, for the Indians or Chinese to sack DC aux Visigoths?

Static analysis often shows many false positives. A more intelligent tool can help not to waste limited engineering time.

False positives are noise, but if the tool is filtering out its own noise via AI, it might work. Or you could take a high false positive/low false negative tool and instead of bothering humans with its noisy output, have AI investigate and evaluate if found issues are false positives or not.

This is why you should have several of them checking against the same rulesets and cross-check them to reduce chasing of false positives.