Norway should buy OpenAI
A provocative essay arguing that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund should buy OpenAI prompts skepticism about whether any single company or government could or should steer the future of AI. Commenters question the financial logic, political feasibility, and governance risks of such a move, noting U.S. approval barriers, OpenAI’s uncertain business model, and fast-rising competition from open-source and Chinese models. Many suggest that if a state wants long‑term leverage over AI, investing in public infrastructure, chips, or open models would be safer than using pension funds as exit liquidity for a potentially overvalued private lab.
Role of OpenAI and “cat out of the bag”
- Some argue no single company can now steer AI; open and Chinese models mean the tech is already widely diffused.
- Others counter that demand for new datacenters shows AI’s trajectory is not fixed and could still be shaped.
- There’s extended debate over idioms (“cat out of the bag,” “genie back in the bottle”) reflecting disagreement on whether AI progress is reversible or controllable.
Practical and political feasibility
- Many believe the US government would block any sale of OpenAI to a foreign state, citing past blocked acquisitions.
- Commenters note Norway’s sovereign wealth fund has a pension mandate and strict rules; using half of it on a single speculative tech asset is seen as politically impossible.
- Norwegian participants say there is no domestic political appetite for such a radical move.
- Some raise EU / GDPR and regulatory complications if OpenAI became European-owned.
Valuation, business model, and bubble concerns
- Strong skepticism that OpenAI is worth anything near the mooted $800B+, with doubts about profitability and cash flow.
- Several note intensifying competition from Chinese and open-weight models that are “good enough” and cheaper, implying margin compression.
- Concerns that OpenAI’s datacenter commitments rely on circular financing; some predict a crash or bankruptcy sale.
- Many see the proposal as making Norway the “bag holder” or exit liquidity for early investors.
Alternative strategies for Norway and others
- Suggested better uses of funds: build chip fabs and datacenters in Norway, invest in hardware startups, or back open-source models.
- Some argue latecomers can reach near-parity by distilling frontier models once tech matures, at far lower cost.
- Idea of governments funding public AI infrastructure or open models instead of buying closed firms recurs.
AI risk, regulation, and ethics
- Split between those prioritizing competitiveness and those prioritizing responsibility and safety.
- Some think government ownership would cripple innovation; others think it could enforce stronger alignment and public-interest goals.
- Extreme proposals (e.g., bombing rogue datacenters) are criticized as more dangerous than speculative AI threats themselves.
Tone and meta
- Many treat the article as satire or “wishcasting”; others call it naïve or economically illiterate.
- Broader debates emerge about government competence, Norway’s “easy mode” context, and the limits of market-driven safety.