> At least Sam and Dario are aligned with a value set that is understood and clear

What value set do you perceive that to be, and why would you take your perception of it to be any more sound than it would be with a politician?

It's not like someone can operate companies of that scale, especially startups, through earnestness and openness. Like national politics, their job is fundamentally about perception management and power brokering across dynamic windows of opportunity. Nothing they say or do can be taken at face value, and you can't reduce their incentives to either company or personal profit in any particular form over any particular time scale.

> At least Sam and Dario are aligned with a value set that is understood and clear…

How could we possibly know this?

> I find it even harder to trust elected leaders from any party.

You can vote out an elected leader, but not Sam and Dario. It's very weird that you're so willing to give up any kind of power and want to be ruled by unelected billionaires who only want to take advantage of you at every opportunity.

I find it even, even harder to trust your opinion in this context with a business that has “AI powered” at the top of the landing page.

Yes it's clear that Sam and Dario seem to be aligned with a value set that prioritizes concentrating trans-national government-mandated centralized control of AI and crowning themselves high priests of this unholy abomination. "At least it's clear that they're aiming to bring hell on earth" -- hard disagree, I think we can aim significantly higher.

No system of governance can deal with immense concentration of power. The US Constitution was about separation of powers. Democracy is about (in theory at least) giving each person a meaningful say in their own governance, which in turn implies not allowing any single person to become too powerful.

Political leaders become a problem when they amass too much power. Corporations become a problem when they amass too much power. It doesn't matter what Sam and Dario's purported values are. They aspire to power and absolutely power always corrupts absolutely.

Technologies which are infinitely powerful or whose power grows too quickly outrun any reasonable attempt at regulation. If you imagine that tomorrow everyone were given a tank, we might think, "alright, everyone has a tank so it's not too bad." But humans are squishy, and our houses are (relatively) squishy compared to tanks. Substantial collateral damage would result from everyone having a tank, and it seems likely that substantial collateral damage will result from everyone having a cyberterrorism-capable slop machine.

At least politicians are somewhat beholden to their constituents. What keeps Sam and Dario in line other than profit?

why would that be the case? it's not true for top secret defense contractors today. and the frontier labs already operate in the dark, openness is a liability.

nationalization to me simply means the government is their main customer and stakeholder, and shield them from liability, governance, and openness. not that the frontier labs become part of the government per se.

not this one

My gut reaction is that this is not a good idea.

But I could imagine a scenario where you are required to release weights for publicly-used models after N years. Kinda like how drugs have a limited patent.

Not sure what N should be. But it would make for an interesting rule.

Even better: force them to release every scrap of data they trained their AI on.

who even has the inventive to do that? certainly not the government.

You're taking companies that work almost exclusively for the US government and represent a tiny portion of the US economy as representing all US companies?

a maliciously engineered dichotomy