3 ms·
> In the long run I don't see any company being able to build a moat around AI Why do you think they are screaming about "the dangers of AI"? So they can regul
by willcipriano 3y ago
> In the long run I don't see any company being able to build a moat around AI
Why do you think they are screaming about "the dangers of AI"? So they can regulate it and gain a moat via regulatory capture.
- klyrs 3y ago>> If we've got AI that can generate any games that people actually want to play then we don't need game companies at all. > Why do you think they are screaming about "the dangers of AI"? Perhaps it's those of us who enjoy making games or are otherwise invested in producing content that are concerned about humanity being reduced to braindead consumers of the neverending LLM sludge, who scream the loudest.
- cratermoon 3y agoYes, but we don't get to sit in Congressional committee hearings and bloviate about Existential Risks.
- chongli 3y agoI don't think regulation will achieve what they want. Nothing short of a war-on-drugs style blanket prohibition would work. And you can look there to see how ineffective that's been at keeping drugs off the streets.
- willcipriano 3y agoAnother example of this behavior. The war on drugs not working didn't stop alcohol companies from lobbying for it, any effect that suppresses compition is valuable and its not like OpenAI and the like will be paying for enforcement, you will be.
- chongli 3y agoI'd be very, very surprised if OpenAI was successful in setting up a war-on-drugs style regime that simultaneously sets them up as one of the soul providers of AI (a guaranteed monopoly on AI in the US). One of the big reasons is that it would put the US at an extreme disadvantage, competitively speaking. OpenAI would not be able to hire every single AI developer, so all of that talent would leave the US for greener pastures.