6 ms·
That's an interesting concept: There's the theory, that I tend to believe, that any successful complex system was born as a simple system, then evolved by itera
by wolverine876 3y ago
That's an interesting concept: There's the theory, that I tend to believe, that any successful complex system was born as a simple system, then evolved by iteration, etc. (it's from a 1970s systems theorist, iirc). Trying to birth a complex system directly is almost inevitably a mess.
But does it apply to legislating? One drawback might be that political will and attention is fleeting; and interests become vested in a current state, blocking change; and it's now or not for another generation or so.
- nerdponx 3y agoIt's worth keeping in mind the well-known principle in economics that incumbent market participants, with large economies of scale, have a strong incentive to pursue regulations that increase fixed costs but don't substantially affect marginal costs, or are otherwise decreasing costs with respect to scale. This makes it harder to start a competing firm.
- wolverine876 3y agoThat is a risk, but regulation can also keep the market open to competition, preventing incumbants from abusing their market power. Antitrust law, for example, and the FTC do that.
- nerdponx 3y agoRight. But this is not a thread about the general merits of government regulation in business. This is about something specific, and this principle is essential to keep in mind when evaluating any specific new regulation.
- wolverine876 3y agoAll the principles are essential to keep in mind; I don't see why that one is priviledged.
- nerdponx 3y agoBecause we should have a high "index of suspicion" whenever we see incumbent corporations pushing for regulation that would suppress competition. If we want to have good regulations and effective regulatory agencies, we should be judicious and methodical about what regulations are adopted, who is granted enforcement authority, and what that authority consists of.
- wolverine876 3y ago> Because we should have a high "index of suspicion" whenever we see incumbent corporations pushing for regulation that would suppress competition. It's mostly circular reasoning: Why is it more important? Because we should have a high index of suscipicion, because it's more important. I think we should be equally suspect of people pushing against regulation, which also empowers the powerful.
- viscanti 3y ago> One drawback might be that political will and attention is fleeting; and interests become vested in a current state, blocking change; and it's now or not for another generation or so. If a problem, like tracking what non SOTA models are doing with respect to safety, don't rise to being worth regulated, then why bother regulating it? If you're going to force everyone in the field, in California, to file additional paperwork (and understand what they're legally supposed to report and how and when), then you probably should have a compelling argument for why. If you didn't do that now, and it's never a big enough problem to regulate then you've done no real harm. If it's clearly an issue that needs to be regulated in the future then it should be easy to do so.
- wolverine876 3y ago> If it's clearly an issue that needs to be regulated in the future then it should be easy to do so. That hasn't really been the case, though. Lots of things have needed regulation for a long time - look at carbon emissions, for example - and it doesn't happen. Perhaps the solution is to create the regulatory agency and give them a legitimate process to create new regulations as needs change. Legislatures have limited time and expertise, and can't possibly keep up anyway.