The Debts and Engagements Clause of article VI of the US constitution was kind of a weird little thing to stick in there, but like, it was important to a lot of people at the time and probably helped move the needle to get the thing ratified.

> We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction.

That's easy. Stop training your AIs on cheesy old sci-fi that talks about robot uprisings. In fact, maybe y'all should just stop talking about robot uprisings altogether. Putting a stochastic parrot in charge of an agentic function-calling REPL doesn't somehow make it super-dangerous, except to the extent that dumb mistakes might result in danger. And you can't prevent an AI from making dumb mistakes with burdensome regulation.

Maybe if attribution is available. What do you do for the rest of the ingested content? I think based on the content itself, you assign percentages to the top 3 industries like a naics code. Then whatever Anthropic makes as gross or net, a percentage goes to each industry via assigned bank accounts or USDC addresses via solana or some scalable payment system. Could be the start of ubi or some sort of compensation for jobs displaced by ai usage. So every input gets tagged for categories and every output gets tagged for the same naics categories via federal law.

Yep we need new laws for this. The current laws end up in years long lawsuits and no real change.

It is normal, expected, and healthy to offer criticism of self interested proposals. And mock even. What is unhealthy is to imply someone said what they did not.

What you say is true but completely ignores the obvious ways in which what he is proposing benefits his company.

Its like saying it’s normal for a taxi driver to drive people places while he’s got you handcuffed in the trunk.

How is the subject of potential regulation considered a stakeholder?

[dead]