It's not naivete/goodness, this is totally aligned with their playbook of trying to get AI to be heavily regulated.

OK, that is a plausible argument given Dario's public positions. I have to admit that I keep cutting them some slack for standing up against automated kill chain, and domestic surveillance.

▲

ericd an hour ago | parent | next [-]

To be clear, I don't think they're doing it because they want all the money, I think they truly believe that this is existentially threatening, and are trying to regulate their open source competition away because they think that's the way to be safe. That they can be trusted with the power, but if it's out and about, that's unsafe - they like to compare it to nukes, and they want nuclear non-proliferation.

	▲	consumer451 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is the most "I get both sides" issue in my mind these days. I am still not sure where I fall, or if there is even a correct position with which to agree. It really seems like there are no good options. On the one hand, if all knowledge work ended up in two dude's hands, that is really bad. On the other hand, if every surviving child victim of war (US, RU, IL, CN, whatever) has access to make custom viruses for a few grand, that is also really bad.

▲

15155 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Automated kill chains and domestic surveillance are happening regardless of what one corporation wants. These technologies will never be inaccessible to the government or government contractors who already have zero issues navigating red tape.

The point of regulation is to kill competitors and prevent private individuals from having unfettered access.