Comment by postalcoder
10 days ago
The AI companies were all asking for the government to regulate them. The government is doing what the companies asked for them to do.
You can argue that, by government, they meant some legislative process, but I'd argue that regulation via bad executive order is much better than regulation via bad legislation because the former is tractable. I say this as an EO minimalist.
There's a pretty big difference between "we need laws and regulations" and "let Trump do whatever he feels like today."
What are the proper laws and regulations? Can you point me to a proposed framework that you believe is most correct?
I have no idea how this stuff should be regulated. I do know that any sort of comprehensive legislation at this point in time has a much higher chance of being a bottleneck to innovation than an easily reversible white house directive.
Of all the terrible things to come from the odious Trump administration, them saying "hey, can we make sure these models aren't dangerous?" is one of the least bad things they've done.
>I have no idea how this stuff should be regulated.
That's why we have a system where representatives of districts do research, debate, and hash out those details while the public who votes for them is able to contact them.
>I do know that any sort of comprehensive legislation at this point in time has a much higher chance of being a bottleneck to innovation than an easily reversible white house directive.
That's odd to say after admitting you don't know what the regulation would look like. Especially after seeing the "easily reversible" tariffs from this White House, which changed erratically and had exceptions for people who sweet talked the president.
If you don’t see a difference between a well thought out & debated policy stance and arbitrary enforcement without justification I’m not sure what to say.
Anthropic submitted a long, thoughtful framework proposal, which everyone seems to be ignoring in favor of hot takes like “they asked for this!” No they didn’t, not at all.
1 reply →
> can we make sure these models aren't dangerous
They can’t, though. The models might or might not be too dangerous but the people running the US federal government are too incompetent and/or corrupt to do anything useful about that.
Written laws, passed by congress and senate?
That's not what Trump's doing. He's just trying to pick and choose winners so that he can reward his allies and punish his enemies.
Ok so to be clear you agree this has not been the norm. It seemed like you were clarifying your original message but it was a change of topic, from "this has been the norm" to "this hasn't been the norm but they got what they were asking for" (or what they deserved if not exactly what they asked for). I'll dip out of that conversation.
What an unpleasant form of discourse.
You moved the goalposts. The government controlling what openai can and cannot do is completely different than they gating access out of their own volition.
2 replies →
Welcome to HN. There's cake in the breakroom.
> The AI companies were all asking for the government to regulate them pretty shallow take. they asked for sensible, transparent, tech aware regulations. this is not that.
[dead]
Yeah pretty sure we had a whole bruhaha ~250 years ago about this question of where precisely power belonged. I for one think we mostly got it right then and would be reluctant to shift the power back to the individual sovereign and away from the people.
In this case how have people got power it seems that Trump has all the power here