you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This is clearly the exit strategy here. That's why AI companies' try to label their products as "dangerous" and call for their own regulation. On the one hand, they want to be regarded as a matter of "national security" because they bloody well know that this gives them access to taxpayer money, which in turn can bail them out of their failing bet on data center build-out. On the other hand, it helps them shift liability onto regulators if things go south and allows them to say: "We told you we wanted regulation, but you wouldn't listen."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Don't forget the other option 3: they want regulation to pull the ladder up behind them so there can be no competition. The open models from China have already proven their 'special' technology can be easily improved upon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

    True; I skipped this part because the comment I was replying to was about taxpayer money bailouts. What you're describing is the creation of an artificial moat against competitors. And it is correct that this is also a motive behind pushing for regulation.

  • source
  • parent