Sorry, are you saying car companies begged to be regulated for safety , or they just followed guidelines and improved the safety of their cars without writing articles about how dangerous cars are and they should be taken off the road ?

▲

teagee 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I could see how the push for larger more profitable suvs and trucks in the name of safety is similar— the only reason they’re safer is because small cars get crushed by big cars

▲

paimapi 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

ah it's always a lovely day to drop some historical reference points

https://www.fastcompany.com/90781961/how-automakers-insidiou...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_city

▲

bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-]

ah, I fail to see the parallels ?

▲

paimapi 2 days ago | parent [-]

maybe more explicitly this one: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

“In the 1920s, auto groups redefined who owned the city street. It was [originally the] drivers’ job to avoid you, not your job to avoid them,” says Peter Norton, a historian at the University of Virginia and author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. “But under the new model, streets became a place for cars — and as a pedestrian, it’s your fault if you get hit.”

ie under the banner of "pedestrian safety" that was illustrated by numerous examples of grisly accidents, automobile manufacturing lobbyists pushed jay-walking laws and essentially took all city streets away from pedestrian use, entrenching reliance on cars for transportation and urban design to match

the idea here was to portray cars as inevitable, necessary things that were going to kill people anyway (just like how AI is inevitably going to lead to mass security breaches) and really it's the pedestrian's (or the maintainer's) job to avoid being harmed

▲

bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's still a different situation. In the example provided it seems like the car companies lobbied to make it a law that the "pedestrians" were at fault if they were hit for "jaywalking", thus absolving responsibility for pedestrian safety.

The equivalent to the "AI companies" pitch would've been the car companies lobbying to make cars much safer therefore raising the bar for competitors to join the market. Like if Henry Ford was the only person to own the patent for air bags and then lobbied hard to regulate that every car shipped with one.

	▲	paimapi 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think this is too generous of an interpretation of OpenAI's and Anthropic's position. the 'slow down' mandate is not a real regulatory standard - policies are generally crafted based on good vs bad outcomes, not speed-of-development. the drive for this kind of specific, toothless regulation is done at the behest of large corporations looking at open-weight models eating their cake and realizing that any small player could now do so too if they had the compute backing them (places like Canopy Wave, for eg) that it also serves as marketing material for just how capable their models are is just a cherry on top, I suppose