Because ultimately those things (apartments, high-speed rail, mines, factories, datacenters, etc) exist for the benefit of the public.
We give tax breaks because we recognize that these things are beneficial to the economy and want to incentivize their construction. Some countries go even farther and directly subsidize development.
So many of these things DON'T benefit the public, especially as automation reduces the number of jobs they produce. They mostly benefit the capital holders and they'll take steps to increase their profit even if they hurt the public in the long run.
Nonsense. Who consumes the goods produced by the factories and mines? Who lives in the apartments and takes the high speed rail?
Automation is also a massive boon to the common man. It's the only reason we're not both dirt farmers right now, and is responsible for most of the increase in standard of living over the last two centuries. Your views are short-sighted.
> Who consumes the goods produced by the factories and mines?
Not all consumption is good. It can harm health, relationships, etc. And many goods have been ravaged by planned obsolescence and other corner cutting such that we're forced to consume more to maintain status quo.
> Who lives in the apartments and takes the high speed rail?
This is frankly an entirely different class from mines and factories. While there is "NIMBYism" over both, the reasoning for it can be vastly different.
The reason I started my comment with "Privatize the profits, socialize the losses" is not because we shouldn't have any mines or factories or apartments or high speed rail or automation. It's because our corrupted system means the negative impacts of them is felt more by the public while the positive impacts are concentrated in fewer people. Automation that enriches everyone is great. Automation that leaves people destitute is not. These things don't just naturally end up on the positive side.
That's not your call to make. If I am willing to spend my hard-earned money on a thing, it's because I think it will improve my life. Who are you to tell me otherwise? You're not my mom.
And it is not true that we "Privatize the profits, socialize the losses". Bailouts are rare exceptions; in general, investors take the loss when a business fails. They are last in line in bankruptcy court and cannot be insured.
That's not your judgement to make. First it's patently false in almost every modern society (there might be some with literally no restrictions on private ownership, idk), and second everyone can come to their own conclusions.
I for one am glad we don't have 8-year-olds enjoying one last smoke before an entire day in the mines, and if we did, I wouldn't let you tell me I can't say whether that's good or bad. You're not my mom.
> Automation is also a massive boon to the common man.
So much so, that we aren't allowed to download and finetune the model weights that we helped to train?
When OpenAI and Anthropic start begging Uncle Sam for bailouts, I'll be voting to let them go bankrupt. There's no love for companies that leech off of the common man like this and then beg for more tax money to larp as a profitable company.
America's AI corporations are not your friend. They're not as friendly as Apple or Google were, because those companies depended on a positive B2C business relationship. OpenAI and Anthropic both grovel at the feet of the government and eye an IPO at the same time. It's pathetic.
Whether data-centers and AI are actually beneficial is still somewhat of an open question with large groups on both sides. So unclear how beneficial data centers are to the general public.
We give tax breaks because we recognize that these things are beneficial to the economy and want to incentivize their construction. Some countries go even farther and directly subsidize development.