>I have no idea how this stuff should be regulated.

That's why we have a system where representatives of districts do research, debate, and hash out those details while the public who votes for them is able to contact them.

>I do know that any sort of comprehensive legislation at this point in time has a much higher chance of being a bottleneck to innovation than an easily reversible white house directive.

That's odd to say after admitting you don't know what the regulation would look like. Especially after seeing the "easily reversible" tariffs from this White House, which changed erratically and had exceptions for people who sweet talked the president.

If you don’t see a difference between a well thought out & debated policy stance and arbitrary enforcement without justification I’m not sure what to say.

> can we make sure these models aren't dangerous

They can’t, though. The models might or might not be too dangerous but the people running the US federal government are too incompetent and/or corrupt to do anything useful about that.

Anthropic submitted a long, thoughtful framework proposal, which everyone seems to be ignoring in favor of hot takes like “they asked for this!” No they didn’t, not at all.

That's not what Trump's doing. He's just trying to pick and choose winners so that he can reward his allies and punish his enemies.

You moved the goalposts. The government controlling what openai can and cannot do is completely different than they gating access out of their own volition.

Welcome to HN. There's cake in the breakroom.