Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives. Even firearms, despite a constitutional amendment! Why not models? (Note I am not arguing it's a good idea; I'm making a narrow argument that there is precedent.)

EDIT: I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.

> Regulatory agencies limit uses of other products without acts of congress-- cigarettes, vapes, drugs, pesticides, chemicals, explosives.

Every one of those is by a regulatory agency that was explicitly empowered by Congress to do such regulation.

The ATF was created by an act of congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

> I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.

Should ever new "weapon" invented require a new act of Congress? We've considered software subject this act since the 90s.

If everyone making AI is screaming up and down that we are in an AI arms race creating dangerous entities that will determine the fate of the world is the government just supposed to ignore them?

All of the agencies responsible for those regulations were created by and get their funding from Congress. Currently, they're asleep at the wheel. Or a better idiom might be "cowering in the corner".

None of those things are knowledge. I think theres something specific around limiting access to knowledge and capabilities that makes this feel insidious.

Fairly certain all those have "acts of congress" attached to them. I mean, it used to take a constitutional amendment to make something illegal but now we have tons of agencies responsible for regulating all the things.

Plus, they're relying on the "math is a weapon" law to ban "export" of the models.

"Malboro cigarettes may once again be sold, but Newport remains banned for everyone except large purchasers that have paid the appropriate bri... fees."