3 ms·

sama is basically trying to say that OpenAI is the only one who can be trusted to build LLMs. How is that not regulatory capture?

Kbelicius 2y ago
So making a statement is regulatory capture now?
- int_19h 2y ago
  It's a statement that expresses the desire to achieve regulatory capture.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Which isn't up to OpenAI, it's up to the regulators and, to a lesser extent, the voters.
- gspencley 2y ago
  Yeah but the crucial piece of context is who that statement is made to and how it is received. We typically call this process "lobbying." And what it usually looks like in practice is that regulators will extend an open invite to "industry leaders" to chime in on the proposed regulation. During that process, the interest groups advocating on behalf of the "industry leaders" will utter statements that aim to shape the regulation in a way that is beneficial to the corporation being lobbied for. The end goal is typically to land on a new bill that will a) give the regulators new fodder for legislative resume, so they can show their voting constituency that they accomplished something and b) are not too expensive for the "industry leaders" to comply with. During the regulatory process this will get shrouded in language along the lines of making sure that the regulation won't cost jobs etc. But, if all goes according to plan, the regulation will c) be insanely expensive for new startups to comply with, thus ensuring that any negative consequences that are caused by the new bill will be "invisible" because they will largely apply to hypotheticals (new startups wanting to enter the market) and small players that aren't on anyone's radar
__loam 2y ago
It's only regulatory capture if the legislative branch actually passes the laws Sam wants. As far as I know, none have. Public officials are also becoming increasingly wary of tech, with laws being discussed in places like California that OpenAI has publicly opposed.

Kbelicius 2y ago

So making a statement is regulatory capture now?

int_19h 2y ago
It's a statement that expresses the desire to achieve regulatory capture.
- consteval 2y ago
  Which isn't up to OpenAI, it's up to the regulators and, to a lesser extent, the voters.
gspencley 2y ago
Yeah but the crucial piece of context is who that statement is made to and how it is received. We typically call this process "lobbying." And what it usually looks like in practice is that regulators will extend an open invite to "industry leaders" to chime in on the proposed regulation. During that process, the interest groups advocating on behalf of the "industry leaders" will utter statements that aim to shape the regulation in a way that is beneficial to the corporation being lobbied for. The end goal is typically to land on a new bill that will a) give the regulators new fodder for legislative resume, so they can show their voting constituency that they accomplished something and b) are not too expensive for the "industry leaders" to comply with. During the regulatory process this will get shrouded in language along the lines of making sure that the regulation won't cost jobs etc. But, if all goes according to plan, the regulation will c) be insanely expensive for new startups to comply with, thus ensuring that any negative consequences that are caused by the new bill will be "invisible" because they will largely apply to hypotheticals (new startups wanting to enter the market) and small players that aren't on anyone's radar

__loam 2y ago

It's only regulatory capture if the legislative branch actually passes the laws Sam wants. As far as I know, none have. Public officials are also becoming increasingly wary of tech, with laws being discussed in places like California that OpenAI has publicly opposed.