This looks like privately funded educational not for profit. How would that be appropriately regulated?

Right, I'm not saying that they would be regulated, but rather the provider of the instrument, and the market adoption of it.

Take the emotions he experienced after the event: "Who do I talk to, how do I undo this, what do I do" etc., and the fact that he's met with a wall of silence from Anthropic.

Perhaps there needs be more concerted preparation, guidance, direction and less trial and error for how society adopts it.

The imperfect comparison that sometimes comes up is to that of nuclear power, where international regulation and guidance quickly was adopted. I'm not necessarily endorsing the literal comparison, but an attitude of "well, let's just see how people choose to use nuclear power" would have yielded a significantly different world, I'm sure.

	▲	graemep 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Its far more difficult than physical safety criteria with things like nuclear energy. Will the ban be on providing tools that can delete things? In this case it looks like it was writing software that can delete things. SO maybe require that coding tools do not run code without a check? So things like Claude auto mode are not allowed? The result will be people ignore warnings. The question of how people choose to use nuclear power does not arise, because most people use the electricity it generates rather than operate their own nuclear power stations. With AI people need to operate it themselves. Its fundamentally different. Its more like trying to stop people from writing bad code.