6 ms·

Archive: https://archive.is/j1XTl https://archive.is/j1XTl I cannot help but feel that discussing this topic under the blanket term "AI Regulation" is a bit de

Archive: https://archive.is/j1XTl https://archive.is/j1XTl I cannot help but feel that discussing this topic under the blanket term "AI Regulation" is a bit deceptive. I've noticed that whenever this topic comes up, almost every major figure remains rather vague on the details. Who are some influential figures actually advancing clearly defined regulations or key ideas for approaching how we should think about AI regulation? What we should be doing is surfacing well defined points regarding AI regulation and discussing them, instead of fighting proxy wars for opaque groups with infinite money. It feels like we're at the point where nobody is even pretending like people's opinions on this topic are relevant, it's just a matter of pumping enough money and flooding the zone. Personally, I still remain very uncertain about the topic; I don't have well-defined or clearly actionable ideas. But I'd love to hear what regulations or mental models other HN readers are using to navigate and think about this topic. Sam Altman and Elon Musk have both mentioned vague ideas of how AI is somehow going to magically result in UBI and a magical communist utopia, but nobody has ever pressed them for details. If they really believe this then they could make some more significant legally binding commitments, right? Notice how nobody ever asks: who is going to own the models, robots, and data centers in this UBI paradise? It feels a lot like Underpants Gnomes: (1) Build AGI, (2) ???, (3) Communist Utopia and UBI.

jasonsb 11mo ago
> I cannot help but feel that discussing this topic under the blanket term "AI Regulation" is a bit deceptive. I've noticed that whenever this topic comes up, almost every major figure remains rather vague on the details. Who are some influential figures actually advancing clearly defined regulations or key ideas for approaching how we should think about AI regulation? There's a vocal minority calling for AI regulation, but what they actually want often strikes me as misguided: "Stop AI from taking our jobs" - This shouldn't be solved through regulation. It's on politicians to help people adapt to a new economic reality, not to artificially preserve bullshit jobs. "Stop the IP theft" - This feels like a cause pushed primarily by the 1%. Let's be realistic: 99% of people don't own patents and have little stake in strengthening IP protections.
- piva00 11mo ago
  > "Stop the IP theft" - This feels like a cause pushed primarily by the 1%. Let's be realistic: 99% of people don't own patents and have little stake in strengthening IP protections. Artists are not primarily in the 1% though, it's not only patents that are IP theft.
  - vjvjvjvjghv 11mo ago
    Do the artists that are not in the 1% actually benefit from IP or does it hinder them from building new art based on other art? It seem to me that IP only benefits the top players.
    - philipwhiuk 11mo ago
      Photographers massively benefit from IP protection.
    - piva00 11mo ago
      Can you give me an example of the situation you are picturing? Simply because I can't see what you mean by artists being hindered by IP, artists try to create original work, and derivative work from other IP is usually re-interpreted enough to fall under fair use. I can't picture a situation where artists could be hindered on their creations due to IP owned by others.
      - justincormack 11mo ago
        Sampling in music is now paid for, it used to be free, as one example.
        piva00 11mo ago
        Sampling is still done, I'm a hobbyist music producer, and friends with many professionals. They have to clear the samples and pay royalties, and they get royalties from sampled tracks. It's more cumbersome while being fairer, it hasn't stopped at all the practice. As a hobbyist I do it all the time while my professional friends clear their samples before earning money on their tracks.
dist-epoch 11mo ago
Elon Musk explicitly said in his latest Joe Rogan appearance that he advocates for the smallest government possible - just army, police, legal. He did NOT mention social care, health care. Doesn't quite align with UBI, unless he envisions the AI companies directly giving the UBI to people (when did that ever happen?)
- disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
  > Elon Musk explicitly said in his latest Joe Rogan appearance that he advocates for the smallest government possible - just army, police, legal. He did NOT mention social care, health care. This would be a 19th century government, just the "regalian" functions. It's not really plausible in a world where most of the population who benefit from the health/social care/education functions can vote.
  - ishouldbework 11mo ago
    > most of the population [..] can vote. I mean, this is a solvable problem...
- ToucanLoucan 11mo ago
  Like every other self-serving rich “Libertarian,” they want a small government when it stands to get in their way, and a large one when they want their lifestyle subsidized by government contracts.
  - billy99k 11mo ago
    "subsidized by government contracts" Subsidized implies they are getting free money for doing nothing. It's a business transaction. I wouldn't call being a federal worker being subsidized by the government either.
    - ToucanLoucan 11mo ago
      I mean it depends what kind of subsidy we're talking. On contracts: Space X builds rockets for the government, fair enough, in a vacuum. Though I would ask why we're paying a private corporation to recycle NASA designs we wouldn't fund via NASA, rather than just having NASA or the Air Force do it. On welfare: Corporations like Walmart benefit incredibly from the tattered remnants of America's social safety net, because if it didn't both exist and demand that people work to earn the benefits, nobody in their right mind would work for places like Walmart, because they wouldn't get paid enough to live. If nothing else, they would all die of starvation, which of course I don't want, but Walmart is also benefiting from that, albeit indirectly. Misc: artificially low taxes, the ability for corporations to shelter revenue overseas to avoid taxes, temporary stays on property taxes to attract businesses to a given area, lax environmental regulations in some areas, and lots of other examples of all the little ways private industry gets money from the government they shouldn't have. Most of these not only don't "give something back" but detract from the society or the larger world. And to emphasize, I'm not even arguing for or against here. I'm just saying Elon Musk doesn't want a small government, nor a large one. He wants a government he can puppet. As long as it benefits him and does not constrain him, he doesn't give a shit what else it does. A short list of libertarian principles I'd bet a LOT of money Elon does not endorse: - Abolition of Intellectual Property: Hardcore libertarians argue patents and copyrights are government-enforced monopolies that stifle innovation. Musk’s companies rely heavily on IP protections—Tesla’s battery tech, SpaceX’s designs, Neuralink’s research. Without IP law, his competitive moat collapses. - No Government Subsidies: Libertarian principle: the market should stand on its own, no handouts. Musk’s empire thrives on subsidies: Tesla leaned on EV tax credits, SpaceX lives off NASA and DoD contracts, SolarCity was propped up by state incentives. - Minimal Regulation: Libertarians want deregulation across the board. Musk benefits from regulation: environmental rules push consumers toward EVs, carbon credits generate revenue, and zoning laws often bend to his lobbying. - Free Markets Without Favoritism is a Libertarian ideal: no special treatment, no cronyism. Musk actively lobbies for policies that tilt markets in his favor, from energy credits to space launch contracts. That is not free competition, it is government-backed advantage. - Flat, Transparent Taxation: Libertarians often push for simple, low, flat taxes with no loopholes. Musk’s companies exploit tax shelters, property tax abatements, and complex accounting maneuvers to minimize liability. That is the opposite of transparent.
_spduchamp 11mo ago
Algorithmic Accountability. Not just for AI, but also social media, advertising, voting systems, etc. Algorithm Impact Assessments need to become mandatory.
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  Sounds like a great way to make jobs for a bunch of talkers and parasites.
hobom 11mo ago
There are several concrete proposals to regulate AI either proposed or passed. The most recent prominent example of a passed law is California SB53, whose summary you can read here: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/10/california-sb-53-frontier-ai-law-what-it-does?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/10/california-sb...
solumunus 11mo ago
You should ignore literally everything Musk says. He is incredibly unintelligent relative to his status.
bgwalter 11mo ago
Musk wants extreme law and order and will beat down any protests. His X account is full of posts that want to fill up prisons. This is the highlight so far: https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1992599328897294496#m https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1992599328897294496#m Notice that the retweeted Will Tanner post also denigrates EBT. Musk does not give a damn about UBI. The unemployed will do slave labor, go to prison, or, if they revolt, they will be hanged. It is literally all out there by now.

jasonsb 11mo ago

> I cannot help but feel that discussing this topic under the blanket term "AI Regulation" is a bit deceptive. I've noticed that whenever this topic comes up, almost every major figure remains rather vague on the details. Who are some influential figures actually advancing clearly defined regulations or key ideas for approaching how we should think about AI regulation? There's a vocal minority calling for AI regulation, but what they actually want often strikes me as misguided: "Stop AI from taking our jobs" - This shouldn't be solved through regulation. It's on politicians to help people adapt to a new economic reality, not to artificially preserve bullshit jobs. "Stop the IP theft" - This feels like a cause pushed primarily by the 1%. Let's be realistic: 99% of people don't own patents and have little stake in strengthening IP protections.

piva00 11mo ago
> "Stop the IP theft" - This feels like a cause pushed primarily by the 1%. Let's be realistic: 99% of people don't own patents and have little stake in strengthening IP protections. Artists are not primarily in the 1% though, it's not only patents that are IP theft.
- vjvjvjvjghv 11mo ago
  Do the artists that are not in the 1% actually benefit from IP or does it hinder them from building new art based on other art? It seem to me that IP only benefits the top players.
  - philipwhiuk 11mo ago
    Photographers massively benefit from IP protection.
  - piva00 11mo ago
    Can you give me an example of the situation you are picturing? Simply because I can't see what you mean by artists being hindered by IP, artists try to create original work, and derivative work from other IP is usually re-interpreted enough to fall under fair use. I can't picture a situation where artists could be hindered on their creations due to IP owned by others.
    - justincormack 11mo ago
      Sampling in music is now paid for, it used to be free, as one example.
      - piva00 11mo ago
        Sampling is still done, I'm a hobbyist music producer, and friends with many professionals. They have to clear the samples and pay royalties, and they get royalties from sampled tracks. It's more cumbersome while being fairer, it hasn't stopped at all the practice. As a hobbyist I do it all the time while my professional friends clear their samples before earning money on their tracks.

dist-epoch 11mo ago

Elon Musk explicitly said in his latest Joe Rogan appearance that he advocates for the smallest government possible - just army, police, legal. He did NOT mention social care, health care. Doesn't quite align with UBI, unless he envisions the AI companies directly giving the UBI to people (when did that ever happen?)

disgruntledphd2 11mo ago
> Elon Musk explicitly said in his latest Joe Rogan appearance that he advocates for the smallest government possible - just army, police, legal. He did NOT mention social care, health care. This would be a 19th century government, just the "regalian" functions. It's not really plausible in a world where most of the population who benefit from the health/social care/education functions can vote.
- ishouldbework 11mo ago
  > most of the population [..] can vote. I mean, this is a solvable problem...
ToucanLoucan 11mo ago
Like every other self-serving rich “Libertarian,” they want a small government when it stands to get in their way, and a large one when they want their lifestyle subsidized by government contracts.
- billy99k 11mo ago
  "subsidized by government contracts" Subsidized implies they are getting free money for doing nothing. It's a business transaction. I wouldn't call being a federal worker being subsidized by the government either.
  - ToucanLoucan 11mo ago
    I mean it depends what kind of subsidy we're talking. On contracts: Space X builds rockets for the government, fair enough, in a vacuum. Though I would ask why we're paying a private corporation to recycle NASA designs we wouldn't fund via NASA, rather than just having NASA or the Air Force do it. On welfare: Corporations like Walmart benefit incredibly from the tattered remnants of America's social safety net, because if it didn't both exist and demand that people work to earn the benefits, nobody in their right mind would work for places like Walmart, because they wouldn't get paid enough to live. If nothing else, they would all die of starvation, which of course I don't want, but Walmart is also benefiting from that, albeit indirectly. Misc: artificially low taxes, the ability for corporations to shelter revenue overseas to avoid taxes, temporary stays on property taxes to attract businesses to a given area, lax environmental regulations in some areas, and lots of other examples of all the little ways private industry gets money from the government they shouldn't have. Most of these not only don't "give something back" but detract from the society or the larger world. And to emphasize, I'm not even arguing for or against here. I'm just saying Elon Musk doesn't want a small government, nor a large one. He wants a government he can puppet. As long as it benefits him and does not constrain him, he doesn't give a shit what else it does. A short list of libertarian principles I'd bet a LOT of money Elon does not endorse: - Abolition of Intellectual Property: Hardcore libertarians argue patents and copyrights are government-enforced monopolies that stifle innovation. Musk’s companies rely heavily on IP protections—Tesla’s battery tech, SpaceX’s designs, Neuralink’s research. Without IP law, his competitive moat collapses. - No Government Subsidies: Libertarian principle: the market should stand on its own, no handouts. Musk’s empire thrives on subsidies: Tesla leaned on EV tax credits, SpaceX lives off NASA and DoD contracts, SolarCity was propped up by state incentives. - Minimal Regulation: Libertarians want deregulation across the board. Musk benefits from regulation: environmental rules push consumers toward EVs, carbon credits generate revenue, and zoning laws often bend to his lobbying. - Free Markets Without Favoritism is a Libertarian ideal: no special treatment, no cronyism. Musk actively lobbies for policies that tilt markets in his favor, from energy credits to space launch contracts. That is not free competition, it is government-backed advantage. - Flat, Transparent Taxation: Libertarians often push for simple, low, flat taxes with no loopholes. Musk’s companies exploit tax shelters, property tax abatements, and complex accounting maneuvers to minimize liability. That is the opposite of transparent.

_spduchamp 11mo ago

Algorithmic Accountability. Not just for AI, but also social media, advertising, voting systems, etc. Algorithm Impact Assessments need to become mandatory.

terminalshort 11mo ago
Sounds like a great way to make jobs for a bunch of talkers and parasites.

hobom 11mo ago

There are several concrete proposals to regulate AI either proposed or passed. The most recent prominent example of a passed law is California SB53, whose summary you can read here: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/10/california-sb-53-frontier-ai-law-what-it-does?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/10/california-sb...

solumunus 11mo ago

You should ignore literally everything Musk says. He is incredibly unintelligent relative to his status.

bgwalter 11mo ago

Musk wants extreme law and order and will beat down any protests. His X account is full of posts that want to fill up prisons. This is the highlight so far: https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1992599328897294496#m https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1992599328897294496#m Notice that the retweeted Will Tanner post also denigrates EBT. Musk does not give a damn about UBI. The unemployed will do slave labor, go to prison, or, if they revolt, they will be hanged. It is literally all out there by now.