3 ms·

> Even the IT industry is much more mature than that The IT industry is like the average googler - competent enough to use the tools designed for them. They ar

> Even the IT industry is much more mature than that The IT industry is like the average googler - competent enough to use the tools designed for them. They aren't who I'm talking about. > an unsupported claim by people who simply want to do whatever they like The claim that regulation doesn't hamper innovation is an unsupported assertion of control freaks. And regulation that directs innovation only does so because it makes alternative innovations harder - not because it makes certain innovations easier. > All those innovations go back to the 1990s. Don't take such things for granted. Their age makes them no less relevant; regulation would have killed them just as easily as chatgpt. I picked old tech as examples because their benefit to the world - and the lax regulatory environment they were created in - are both incontrovertible. That makes them no less examples of innovation. > oppression has increased and democracy and freedom have retreated One of the best weapons to implement these kinds of changes are an ever-increasing regulatory burden. Small wonder that's increased alongside the harms you describe. > misinformation Everyone does it, everyone gets fooled by it, everyone thinks they're special. More signal, more information - not less - is the only hope for a solution there. But that's not what I meant. I meant that I have gcc on my laptop, and I can compile code there that runs on linux, and no one can stop me from writing code and sharing it. But they can add ever greater regulations to the infrastructure involved until the friction kills the community.

wolverine876 3y ago
> I meant that I have gcc on my laptop, and I can compile code there that runs on linux, and no one can stop me from writing code and sharing it. But they can add ever greater regulations to the infrastructure involved until the friction kills the community. Much of that gcc-on-Linux compiled code is absolute crap (generally, not yours), as we can see by the outcomes. We need much higher standards for anything engineered for the public. >> oppression has increased and democracy and freedom have retreated > One of the best weapons to implement these kinds of changes are an ever-increasing regulatory burden. Could you give an example? China, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, India, etc. are not known for their regulatory burdens. The EU has plenty of regulation and is arguably the leading region for democracy. > The claim that regulation doesn't hamper innovation is an unsupported assertion of control freaks. And regulation that directs innovation only does so because it makes alternative innovations harder - not because it makes certain innovations easier. I didn't say regulation doesn't hamper innovation, I said it depends on the regulation. Some regulations make innovation easier; for example, standardized Internet protocols fostered incredible innovation, instead of everyone reinventing incompatible wheels.
- generalizations 3y ago
  > is absolute crap ... as we can see by the outcomes Which outcomes? safety or productivity? Because all kinds of useful stuff is built in an unsafe manner. > We need much higher standards for anything engineered for the public. I think you're imagining a world where the same software exists, but safer. What you would actually get is far less useful software. > Could you give an example? China, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, India, etc. are not known for their regulatory burdens. But the US and UK are, increasingly so. Voter registration makes it harder to vote. Backdoor requirements in messaging apps (like what the UK tried to pass recently) can be used to target journalists and limit our freedom of speech. Misinformation regulations can be misused for censorship (which facts are wrong/inconvenient? let the government decide). And recently on HN - regulations on AI safety are being pushed by the incumbent players (e.g openai) to keep out new ones. > The EU has plenty of regulation and is arguably the leading region for democracy. And is far, far behind on innovation. Mistral and deepmind are rare counterexamples on the long tail of the bell curve. > Some regulations make innovation easier; for example, standardized Internet protocols Do you mean the IETF? Because that's not a government nor regulatory body. It's a great example of the actual engineers involved, not bureaucrats, working together outside of regulatory bodies to make stuff work. > I didn't say regulation doesn't hamper innovation, I said it depends on the regulation. >> An inverse relationship between pace of innovation and regulation is an unsupported claim by people who simply want to do whatever they like and/or want unrestricted personal Yeah, you kinda did.

wolverine876 3y ago

> I meant that I have gcc on my laptop, and I can compile code there that runs on linux, and no one can stop me from writing code and sharing it. But they can add ever greater regulations to the infrastructure involved until the friction kills the community. Much of that gcc-on-Linux compiled code is absolute crap (generally, not yours), as we can see by the outcomes. We need much higher standards for anything engineered for the public. >> oppression has increased and democracy and freedom have retreated > One of the best weapons to implement these kinds of changes are an ever-increasing regulatory burden. Could you give an example? China, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, India, etc. are not known for their regulatory burdens. The EU has plenty of regulation and is arguably the leading region for democracy. > The claim that regulation doesn't hamper innovation is an unsupported assertion of control freaks. And regulation that directs innovation only does so because it makes alternative innovations harder - not because it makes certain innovations easier. I didn't say regulation doesn't hamper innovation, I said it depends on the regulation. Some regulations make innovation easier; for example, standardized Internet protocols fostered incredible innovation, instead of everyone reinventing incompatible wheels.

generalizations 3y ago
> is absolute crap ... as we can see by the outcomes Which outcomes? safety or productivity? Because all kinds of useful stuff is built in an unsafe manner. > We need much higher standards for anything engineered for the public. I think you're imagining a world where the same software exists, but safer. What you would actually get is far less useful software. > Could you give an example? China, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, India, etc. are not known for their regulatory burdens. But the US and UK are, increasingly so. Voter registration makes it harder to vote. Backdoor requirements in messaging apps (like what the UK tried to pass recently) can be used to target journalists and limit our freedom of speech. Misinformation regulations can be misused for censorship (which facts are wrong/inconvenient? let the government decide). And recently on HN - regulations on AI safety are being pushed by the incumbent players (e.g openai) to keep out new ones. > The EU has plenty of regulation and is arguably the leading region for democracy. And is far, far behind on innovation. Mistral and deepmind are rare counterexamples on the long tail of the bell curve. > Some regulations make innovation easier; for example, standardized Internet protocols Do you mean the IETF? Because that's not a government nor regulatory body. It's a great example of the actual engineers involved, not bureaucrats, working together outside of regulatory bodies to make stuff work. > I didn't say regulation doesn't hamper innovation, I said it depends on the regulation. >> An inverse relationship between pace of innovation and regulation is an unsupported claim by people who simply want to do whatever they like and/or want unrestricted personal Yeah, you kinda did.