They wrote they’d like to see AI executives testify “about the causes of these incidents, what failures or potential negligence at the companies led to them, and the types of regulation required to make sure they never happen again.”
"Thank you for your question, Mr. Senator. The product I manufacture is going to create an apocalypse or a second industrial revolution any day now. Just ask my sworn enemy Eliezer Yudkowsky!
“But we care about humans, and we’d be happy to set up vague, non-deterministic guardrails that only companies with my level of annualized revenue can afford.”
Lol, they can’t afford to operate at the current state of zero regulatory burden. But they could use regulation as an excuse to effectively outlaw Chinese or open source AI
Exactly. “Guardrails” are already ill-defined, so it’s more than likely that a few companies (with lawyers) can say “we have them, China and small businesses don’t.”
OpenAI/Anthropic might as well say they’re the only companies operating with benevolent invisible wizards, and nobody else is.
"Thank you for your question, Mr. Senator. The product I manufacture is going to create an apocalypse or a second industrial revolution any day now. Just ask my sworn enemy Eliezer Yudkowsky!
“But we care about humans, and we’d be happy to set up vague, non-deterministic guardrails that only companies with my level of annualized revenue can afford.”
Lol, they can’t afford to operate at the current state of zero regulatory burden. But they could use regulation as an excuse to effectively outlaw Chinese or open source AI
Exactly. “Guardrails” are already ill-defined, so it’s more than likely that a few companies (with lawyers) can say “we have them, China and small businesses don’t.”
OpenAI/Anthropic might as well say they’re the only companies operating with benevolent invisible wizards, and nobody else is.