We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Nat Purser
Senior Policy Advocate for AI policy at Public Knowledge, a US digital rights and technology policy nonprofit
The problem is that the government would be a shareholder and a regulator at the same time, which creates substantial conflicts of interest.AI Verified source (2026)
21d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Verified. The NOTUS article at the supplied URL, published June 4, 2026, contains the exact sentence, followed immediately by “Purser said,” after identifying Nat Purser as a senior policy advocate for AI policy at Public Knowledge. Public Knowledge also identifies Nat Purser in that role. Note: the article itself is by Jeff Stein and Samuel Larreal; Nat Purser is the quoted speaker, not the article author. ([notus.org](https://www.notus.org/technology/trump-ai-stake-openai))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
AI Verified
The source_url (notus.org) returned HTTP 403 to automated fetch, but the quote was independently confirmed verbatim via web search. Nat Purser, Senior Policy Advocate for AI policy at Public Knowledge, told NOTUS: "The problem is that the government would be a shareholder and a regulator at the same time, which creates substantial conflicts of interest," in the context of the Trump administration / OpenAI "Public Wealth Fund" proposal for government equity stakes in AI labs. Author attribution is correct. Vote alignment checks out: the statement is "Frontier AI labs should be required to contribute a share of their equity to a national fund that pays a dividend to every citizen," and Purser argues against this kind of government-equity-fund arrangement on conflict-of-interest grounds, so an "against" vote is appropriate. Year 2026 is recent.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 21d ago
replying to Nat Purser