← Back to context

Comment by foota

10 days ago

What? This is the opposite of regulatory capture. Neither anthropic nor openai are getting to choose what happens with their models.

Regulatory capture doesn't necessarily mean the regulated get to decide what the regulators do in precise steps. It can simply mean they support and exist within a regulatory regime that greatly benefits the regulated.

In fact, you generally don't want them directly telling the regulators what to do. Instead, the regulators make complex, costly rules that only large establishment players can follow. The regulators look like they're doing their job; the regulated enjoy higher margins and protection from disruption.

  • How does this benefit the regulated? I'd say it dooms the regulated:

    * with the government requiring the regulated to obtain approval to add each customer, they're losing a massive number of their customers

    * and even if a customer gets approved, every such customer now sees that access to the regulated can (and has been) shutoff with no notice if the gov doesn’t like the provider or customer - it's now a massive supply chain risk for any customer to use a regulated provider

    * the regulated losing a massive part of their customer base for both of the above reasons means significant impairment of their revenue, as well as their valuation, and staying ahead of their competitors and open models requires massive ongoing investment

    Open models are mere months behind.

    • > they're losing a massive number of their customers

      Who are they losing them to? They're the only game in town.

      > it's now a massive supply chain risk for any customer to use a regulated provider

      But seeing as there is no alternative use them they will.

      > the regulated losing a massive part of their customer base

      But they aren't. Access to existing models isn't being pulled. It is only access to previously unreleased models that is being restricted going forward.

      > Open models are mere months behind.

      Presumably the government will strategically ease restrictions as open models gain ground.

  • And the regulated may even publicly complain about the regulations, to increase the illusion that it isn't regulatory capture.

  • That's just vanilla regulation. Yes it tends to create market inefficiencies, by definition. Capture entails industry corrupting and directing regulatory bodies.

  • Exactly! The thing that squeezes out new entrants isn't only the compliance cost, it's that your whole roadmap ends up resting on access you don't control.

    We already saw the terms moved under us once with Fable, the retention policy changed and some requests started routing to a weaker model, none of us small operators had any say in that. Now access itself is a government decisions.

    For anyone building on top of these APIs that's the real barrier, not the rule-following overhead but the fact that the ground can shift mid-flight and you can't negotiate with whoever's moving it.

    Which is exactly why open weights start looking less like ideology and more like risk management.

The other answers are also valid, but lest we not forget, Sam is openly a fascist supporter and is clearly in bed with the regime in that he funded 47's campaign and jumped in to rescue Hegseth's automated kill list with OpenAI's GPT when Anthropic refused. Furthermore they are likely operating on some kind of quid pro quo agreement even if it's not public knowledge, because that's how all this bribery stuff works. Bezos agreed to use his media empire including WaPo to spout MAGA propaganda, for example. It's trump's one and only MO so to assume it doesn't apply here would be insane.

So, while OpenAI may not in a legal/technical sense, be the benefactory, that is not required for the term to apply, AND they may as well be considered party to the creation of the regulation since they have openly lobbied for it, openly inserted themselves into the government apparatus both formally and informally, and likely are co-conspirators to whatever Trump's autocratic self-enrichment scheme is.