Larry Ellison wants to put all America's data in AI, including DNA

Debate over extreme wealth and taxation

• Many argue individuals should not be able to accumulate hundreds of billions; a common suggested cap is around $1B, framed as “enough to live luxuriously forever.”
• Back‑of‑the‑envelope math is used: a $1B fortune invested yields tens of millions per year in real income, sufficient to support multiple families indefinitely.
• Proposals include progressive wealth taxes (not just income taxes): e.g., small percentages above $100M, higher above $1B, up to 100% beyond some threshold.
• Others call such views “evil” and fear they would “destroy the modern world”; critics respond that the current world—with vast inequality, medical bankruptcies, and underfunded public goods—is itself unacceptable.
• There is debate over where to set arbitrary limits, with historical reference to mid‑20th‑century US top tax rates and acknowledgement that any cutoff is essentially political, not scientific.

Psychology and role of billionaires

• Several commenters see amassing extreme wealth as evidence of psychopathy or deep damage; others say wealth amplifies pre‑existing traits rather than creating them.
• Some argue that “normal” wealthy spouses or heirs (e.g., prominent ex‑partners) behave more like ordinary people once in control of large fortunes.
• There is discussion of the hedonic treadmill: people who are driven by accumulation will never feel they have “enough,” regardless of level.
• Others note that billionaires may be motivated by power, being “needed,” grand projects (e.g., Mars), or quasi‑immortality, not consumption.

Ellison’s proposal: unified national data for AI

• Many see the “all data in one system for AI” concept mainly as an Oracle sales pitch (a gigantic RAG database) rather than a pure AI vision.
• Others think it reflects a genuine ideological preference for an oversight‑heavy, quasi‑authoritarian state, with Ellison previously advocating pervasive monitoring to keep citizens “on their best behavior.”
• Some point out Oracle’s healthcare foothold (e.g., via acquisitions) as a practical route to centralized medical and DNA data.

DNA, AI, and discrimination risks

• Skeptics question what real benefit comes from feeding everyone’s DNA into an LLM, beyond dubious pattern‑matching.
• A minority note that specialized DNA models have shown promise; conceptually, a reasoning model plus a genomic model could yield insights.
• However, most concern centers on misuse: genetic data enabling new forms of discrimination (hiring, insurance, policing, targeted addiction marketing), even based on spurious or hallucinated correlations.
• Commenters stress asymmetric vulnerability: elites are likely to exclude themselves from the harsh consequences while imposing the system on everyone else.

Authoritarian surveillance and democratic power

• Many describe the vision as explicitly dystopian and authoritarian: a panopticon, social‑credit‑style system, or “autocomplete panopticon.”
• There is strong sentiment that tech advances now are tragically arriving at a time when the people capable of deploying them are fundamentally untrustworthy.
• Some argue that whether citizens “want this” is increasingly irrelevant because billionaires can buy policy outcomes and shape elections.
• Others worry about aging plutocrats with little remaining lifespan making irreversible decisions whose costs will be borne by younger generations.