I’ve dealt with these regulations across several administrations. Nothing about this is novel, it is just receiving more attention than usual. Anyone could have started caring about this decades ago. You are making an argument from unfamiliarity with the regulations as practiced.

If it takes Trump to force people to educate themselves on how the US government actually works then I guess that is at least one good thing to come out of this.

I am making an observation of fact. My feeds are full of ignorant hot takes that clearly demonstrate people have no clue about current law or how the government actually works. Your response is a perfect demonstration of this. This is neither unique to the current administration nor supporters of a particular party.

I don’t support the admin but if you are unwilling to engage with reality then that is on you.

If by correct you mean, inconsistent with the American tradition of the rule of law and commitment to equal protection of the law, and the emergence of an authoritarian kleptocracy that picks winners and losers. Then yes. Correct.

Not really. They’re all lousy pro tariffs, anti immigration, pro tech regulations, and so on. Paul Ryan is gone.

You can't prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable.

This is why arguments about this go in circles. You either argue from a pure theoretic POV back and forth, or you go off data - at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market"

Even the theoreticians on the free-market side are far less solid than.. all the other sides (behavioural economics, information asymmetry.. even Marx) but I regard it as deeply unpragmatic when there's so much data out there indicating what actually happens in the real world when you go one way or the other.

> A/B test we had on society over the 20th century.

Well, by your own logic, there's a new a/b test running right now. Its results aren't exactly going your way.

What rules, though?

Bernie and AOC (which aren't DNC mainstream, but prominent) had just pushed for a moratorium on "AI data centers" with a definition that includes "that are used for the development or operation of AI models at scale" (trivially sidesteppable by "we build this GPU farm to sell to whoever bids for compute" - which is actually true), plus a bunch of fancy extras bundled in like "The government must review and approve AI products before they are released to ensure that AI products are safe and effective.", while lacking actual definition of "AI" (given that we had "AI" systems since '50s).

Here's the full text: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/AI-Data-Ce...

Yeah, the bill has a cause - it recognizes some pain points. But then it haphazardly tries to address symptoms instead of underlying issues (environmental regulations, utility pricing, land use, job security), while pushing vaguely defined regulations that allow arbitrary application. As if misdirected measures and poorly defined laws aren't already a giant issue.

> I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way.

Is that a joke? We're back in a spat with Iran because Obama refused to engage with Congress, as required by our constitution, to enter the USA in any binding deal.

Any AI actions from the next admin is going to be executive yolos.

Obamacare, but for AI, where every American has to now pay a penalty to not use AI or something like that?

That was the last major thing the Democrats did, and healthcare has gotten substantially worse...but at least it's well regulated now.

> the perception of political decision making

The what? More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline and those wishing to curry or keep his favor" - quite an expansive definition of "political decision making".

> Democrats had a pragmatic policy under Biden

How well does it stand up to Mythos?

Marc Andreesen has first-hand knowledge that absolutely refutes what you are saying.

The Democratic party is more anti-ai than the Republican party and unfortunately both of them are increasingly responding to astroturfed populism.

Do you think Bernie Sanders in AOC are pro-ai? Are you kidding me? Have you seen what they say and the legislation they propose?

If you don't want the current administration to be blindly hated, perhaps you should ask the president to stop publishing daily statements about how much he hates various people. You reap what you sow.

It tells me that the people who buy Republican politicians make money from selling Americans guns, and somebody with influence thinks they can make money by restricting LLM release.

> the entire party aggressively supporting him and everything he does.

That's untrue.

If you do some homework you will see Republican politicians and the Supreme Court disagreeing on a number of issues. Amongst Republican voters, his approval rating has been sliding and is now below 80% in most polls.

They passed one major piece of legislation since he took office and it was loaded with pork to get everyone onboard. I wouldn't call that aggressive. The Right is very fractured right now.

> Trump has an 87% approval rating amongst Republicans as of the last poll I can find.

It's lower than that. Most polls show below 80%.

> Don't let them off the hook.

That's not the way.

[flagged]

Some things are just true. Rape bad, murder bad, war bad. I have never understood this reasoning.

If things are bad are we just supposed to… pretend… they’re not? And that… would help things? Like how? What’s even the mechanism for that?

Lincoln disagrees [1]:

> My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.

While chattel slavery ended when the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, slavery continued through debt bondage and convict leasing up until 1941 where FDR suddenly decided to aggressively prosecute the practice for fear of the Japanese using it for propaganda value. I'm referring to Circular 3591 [2]. And while that heavily curtailed abuse (eg by locking people up essentially indefinitely for "vagrancy" or imaged debts), forced prison labor continues to this day, including private companies profiting from prison labor.

Also, while the Confederacy lost the Civil War, the South arguably won. Reconstruction saw severe curtailment of newly-established civil rights for former enslaved people. And after Reconstruction came Jim Crow until the 1960s.

[1]: https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-lincoln-papers/artic...

[2]: https://www.endslaverynow.org/blog/articles/state-imposed-fo...

The point of slavery was money, and the point of money was power. By the time of the civil war the real power for the ruling class was coming from industrialization.