Comment by Gormo

> OK, so the fact that US senators are discussing harsher liability regimes therefore shows that your "regulatory capture" glove does not fit what is going on here.

They're always discussing harsher liability regimes. The regulatory interventions are always positioned to the public as increasing accountability.

The only relevant question here is whether a preemption clause is present in any draft legislation that actually makes it to the floor in Congress.

>If you distrust the US government, you should be against any US company developing superintelligence.

Well, I'm not concerned with imaginary sci-fi stuff here, just actual AI developments. And the idea that anything that goes on in the US under anyone's purview is inherently and completely subverted by political incentives is of course nonsense; you'll note that I'm explicitly arguing against the introduction of pervasive political incentives into an industry that's so far only somewhat distorted by them.

> So maybe the real solution is for non-US countries to stop providing key elements in the AI supply chain

It's got me feeling like I'm living in Bizarro World, but at the moment, the sanest players in this market, and the ones whose actual behaviors and products are most consistent with a decentralized, individualist approach that aligns with real-world incentive structures most beneficially, are the Chinese AI labs.

To your point, the level of politicization and hype going on in the US, and the absolutely unhinged fantasist speculation driving the public narrative here, is unprecedented and much more frightening than any potential threat coming from AI itself.

If you acknowledged the threat of politicization and centralization, I don't know how you can argue for a regulatory takeover of the market by the very institution you think is becoming a "police state".