If the leading private labs attempt to use the government to pull up the ladder under the pretense of "safety" then the response of the people should be to take such questions out of private hands and nationalize the leading labs.

Or they could abide by the precedents they set and learn to compete. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

▲

protocolture 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

>If the government supports the leading models then we should protect ourselves by making the government own more of it.

Weird, weird weird take. How does any of this work. Like you cant influence the first decision but you can magically influence the second?

▲

ctkhn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem here is you need a trustworthy government for nationalizing to make a difference. The current US admin started with DOGE and a crypto rug pull.

▲

chadgpt3 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How can "the people" nationalize a lab? I'm people, how can I do it?

	▲	georgemcbay an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm people, how can I do it? Vote (well-informed of the candidate's policies) in every election you can, even the local ones that seem of little consequence. Convince others to vote. Make demands of your elected representatives. You can mail them, call them, etc. The government is the people. The Reagan-era and beyond successful convincing of people that the government is an unchangeable black box made up of shady actors out to destroy everything (see: Republicans still going on about the 'deep state' when they run literally everything) is a big part of how we got to this place. It was a self-fulfilling lie, now coming true as the people who sold the lie start grasping for unending power. But we still have the ability to vote our way out of it. If we continue to fail to do so, then at an evolutionary level we have to consider that we collectively deserve all the bad that comes from it.