This brings up so many issues imo.

I hate the idea of government throwing its weight around based on personal vendettas (in the case of this Fable debacle), so it's clear that if this tech is going to be foundation-level important to the economy going forward, we need some sort of laws guaranteeing our access to it.

But authoritarians in government aren't the only party we need to be concerned about. As shown by this post, the actual model companies themselves may have too much centralized power already.

Given all software development has essentially moved to AI-first, an authoritarian-minded Anthropic/OpenAI employee is currently able to pick winners in the economy by granting/withholding access to certain groups. That is the type of thing I think needs to be regulated, not some trivial cyber security abilities in the actual models themselves.

The Google-style B2C blanket ban with zero customer support approach isn't going to cut it if the models continue progressing at this rate and the lead ever widens with open source (which it likely will at some point).

I don't think such regulation should be restricted to AI. "Google-style B2C blanket bans" routinely ruin people's livelihoods in other ways, including, of course, when Google does it. There are way too many companies nowadays that are way too central to how way too many people live their lives.

If you want to be a piece of critical infrastructure, you need to deal with the implications of that. It's not OK for private entities to be able to "unperson" people in important parts of their lives for what amounts to convenience reasons. If them not being able to do that raises the price of the service, so be it.

Honestly even banks, which are already highly regulated and at least have more nominal competition, still have too much leeway to cut off customers based on error-prone statistical methods, without recourse or explanation.