Comment by eggplantemoji69
6 days ago
Yes this seems most likely. Regulatory capture, essentially, if they can get legislation made around this. Also serves as a convenient way/reason to stop training new models ($$$) by calling for a slowdown.
6 days ago
Yes this seems most likely. Regulatory capture, essentially, if they can get legislation made around this. Also serves as a convenient way/reason to stop training new models ($$$) by calling for a slowdown.
Yes, but to be clear: Nuclear non-proliferation was regulatory capture.
There were five nuclear states grandfathered in when the NPT was signed. Since then, five other countries have developed nuclear weapons.
Apart from South Africa (which gave up its nukes voluntarily), the other contenders were basically only held back due to military intervention (Iraq, Libya, Syria) or economic sanctions (Iran).
How's that one going for humanity in 2026?
From what I understand, it has gone great if your atoms exist on the other side of the cold war, no?
1 reply →
Is it still regulatory capture if it also happens to be true?
I'll note that, if it is true, the only other alternative is to ensure liability is held by whoever trained and/or provided the inference for the damage done by the model. This would effectively shut down open-weight models anyway.
> Is it still regulatory capture if it also happens to be true?
To an extent, yes. For example, aircraft: one can say something broadly true like "it is important that planes do not fall out of the sky" while also calling for not-strictly-necessary regulations that happen to support your own business like "we need to be able to inspect factories at any time for compliance, so the factories must be local to our nation".
Then it’s just regulation working properly.