Comment by boppo1
2 years ago
>security theater leading to a regulatory moat. Which is almost certain to help profit margins at established AI companies.
Yeah I think this is my biggest worry given it will enable incumbents to be even more dominant in our lives than bigtech already is (unless we get an AI plateau again real soon).
And choosing not to regulate prevents that… how exactly?
Your question embeds a logical fallacy.
You're challenging a statement of the form, "A causes B. I don't like B, so we shouldn't do A." You are challenging it by asking, "How does not doing A prevent B?" Converting that to logic, you are replacing "A implies B" with "not-A implies not-B". But those statements are far from equivalent!
To answer the real question, it is good to not guarantee a bad result, even though doing so doesn't guarantee a good result. So no, choosing not to regulate does not guarantee that we stop this particular problem. It just means that we won't CAUSE it.
No, GP specifically said it “enables” it, not that it contributes to it.
If they meant to say “contributes to,” then the obvious question is: to what degree and for what benefit? Which is a very different conversation than a binary “enabling” of a bad outcome.
3 replies →
By ensuring there is competition and alternatives that don't cost a million before you can even start training.
Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself.
1 reply →