← Back to context

Comment by heftykoo

2 days ago

Ah, the classic AI startup lifecycle:

We must build a moat to save humanity from AI.

Please regulate our open-source competitors for safety.

Actually, safety doesn't scale well for our Q3 revenue targets.

Foundational model provider manifesto:

‘While there’s value in safety, we value the Pentagon’s dollars more’

Once they are a dominant market leader they will go back to asking the government to regulate based on policy suggestions from non-profits they also fund.

  • Is this sarcasm?

    • It is well know that big corporations take good regulations and change them to make them:

      1. Easier to bypass for themselves.

      2. Create extra work for incumbents.

      3. Convince the public that the problems are solved so no other action is needed.

      In many industries goverment and corporations work together to create regulations bypassing the social movements that asked for the industry to be regulated and their actual problems. The end result are regulations that are extremely complex to add exceptions for anything that big corporations paid to change instead of regulations that protect citizens and encourage competition.

      1 reply →

    • I think it is cynicism; at least, there’s an idea that once a company is dominant it should want regulation, as it’ll stifle competition (since the competition has less capacity for regulatory hoop-jumping, or the competition will have had less time to do regulatory capture).

It's not just AI, replace "safe" with "open" and you will find a close match with many companies. I guess the difference is that after the initial phase, we are continuously being gaslighted by companies calling things "open" when they are most definitely not.

Politicians also love to regulate, especially over wine and steak and when the watchers don't watch.