5 ms·
> This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes. Where did you get the idea that
by oceanplexian 10mo ago
> This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.
Where did you get the idea that banning new technology that could eliminate jobs is even remotely an American value?
Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption, which has in turn created millions of jobs that didn't exist before and led to the US running the world's largest economy.
- slg 10mo agoThe patent system. I know someone will respond detailing why the patent system is pro-business, but it is objectively government regulation that puts restrictions on new technology, so it's proof that regulation of that sort is at least an American tradition if not fully an "American value".
- johnebgd 10mo agoPatents and trademarks are the only ways to create legal monopolies. They are/were intended to reward innovation but despite good intentions are abused.
- lucas_membrane 10mo agoNot exactly. For example, Major League Baseball has been granted an anti-trust exemption by the US Supreme Court, because they said it was not a business. In some cases in which firms have been found guilty of violating the anti-trust laws, they were fined amounts minuscule in relation to the profits they gained by operating the monopoly. Various governments in the US outsource public services to private monopolies, and the results have sometimes amounted to a serious restraint of trade. The chicanery goes back a long way. For the first decade or so after the passage of the Sherman Act, it was not used against the corporate monopolies that it was written to limit; it was invoked only against labor unions trying to find a way to get a better deal out of the firms operating company stores and company towns etc, etc. Then Teddy Roosevelt, the so-called trust-buster, invoked it under the assumption that he could tell the difference between good and bad monopolies and that he had the power to leave the good monopolies alone. 120 years later, we are in the same sorry situation.
- SequoiaHope 10mo agoIntellectual property restrictions cause harm even when used as intended. They are an extreme rest restriction on market activity and I believe they cause more harm than good.
- bit1993 10mo agoPatents, trademarks, copyright, deeds and other similar concepts are part of what makes capitalism what it is, without them capitalism will not work because they are the mechanisms that enforce private property.
- idiotsecant 10mo agoGood luck with that. When 3/4 of the world laughs at your patent what is the point of patents? IP only works when everyone agrees to it. When they don't it's just a handicap on the ones who do that benefits nobody.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- drivingmenuts 10mo agoMaybe it should be. The system here in the US has produced some great innovations at the cost of great misery among the non-wealthy. At a time when technology promises an easier life, it only seems to benefit the wealthy, while trying to discard everyone else. The light at the end of the tunnel is a 1%-er about to laughingly crush you beneath their wheels.
- noduerme 10mo agoI don't think this is the strongest argument. Every technological revolution so far has initially benefited the wealthy and taken a generation or two for its effects to lift the masses out of previous levels of poverty, but ultimately each one has. To me the stronger argument about AI is that this revolution won't. And that's because this one is not really about productivity or even about capital investment in things that people nominally would want (faster transport, cheaper cotton, home computers). This one is about ending revolution once and for all; it's not about increeasing the wealth of the wealthy, it's about being the first to arrive at AGI and thus cementing that wealth disparity for all perpetuity. It's the endgame. I don't know if that's true, but that's to me the argument as to why this one is exceptional and why the capitalist argument for American prosperity is inapplicable in this case.
- dylan604 10mo agoI don't know about for all perpetuity. If history has shown, anyone that reaches the pinnacle eventually becomes complacent, technology improves by becoming faster/cheaper/smaller. That just means it is prime to always be susceptible to a new something coming along that stands on the shoulders of what came before without having to pay for it. They start where the current leader fought to achieve.
- Arodex 10mo agoThe idea behind self improving AGI is that it will "get" every "new something coming along" before everyone else.
- rudedogg 10mo ago> Where did you get the idea that banning new technology that could eliminate jobs is even remotely an American value? Copyright law is another counter-example to your argument. But somehow? that’s no longer a concern if you have enough money. I guess the trick is to steal from literally everyone so that no one entity can claim any measurable portion of the output as damages. I’ve always thought Copyright should be way shorter than it is, but it’s suspect that we’re having a coming to Jesus moment about IP with all the AI grifting going on.
- zdragnar 10mo agoCopyright has nothing to do with banning technology. It is a set of rules around a particular kind of property rights. There are things you can do with technology that are banned as a result of copyright protections, but the underlying technologies are not banned, only the particular use of them is.
- rudedogg 10mo agoI’m saying if the law was respected at all this technology would be banned. I don’t know that I prefer that outcome, but it is the truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
- __MatrixMan__ 10mo agoI think your take is historically accurate. Although one does wonder how long we'll be able to get away with keeping the pedal to the metal. It might be worth taking a moment to install a steering wheel. Rumor has it there are hazards about.
- rubyfan 10mo agoWe regulate medicine, nuclear technology, television, movies, monopolies, energy, financial services, etc. because these things can be harmful if left solely to the market. Americans value honest work, dignity, prosperity and equal opportunity. Innovation is useful in so far as it enables our values - regulation is not counter to Americans interests, it protects them.
- andsoitis 10mo ago> We regulate medicine, nuclear technology, television, movies, monopolies, energy, financial services, etc. Many of those regulations at the federal level, yes?
- windexh8er 10mo agoSure. And this is not that. This says: before we begin to think about our policy let's make sure to remove any barriers for Mr. Altman and friends so that they don't get sucked down with their Oracle branded boat anchor. If this had any whiff of actually shedding light on these needed regulations the root OP wouldn't have said what they did. But for now I'm going to head over to Polymarket and see if there are any bets I can place on Trump's kids being appointed to the OpenAI board.
- alterom 10mo ago>Many of those regulations at the federal level, yes? In addition to ones at state level, yes.
- eggsandbeer 10mo ago[dead]
- XenophileJKO 10mo agoI feel like anyone making this argument hasn't studied how those regulations happened. They ALL happened AFTER people got hurt. That's how we do things here. We always have. It's kind of messed up, but the alternative is a bunch of rules on things that wouldn't be a real problem.
- grafmax 10mo agoThe question isn’t the jobs created but how have workers benefited from increased productivity? They haven’t materially since late 1970s. That’s when the American labor movement began its decline. Innovation isn’t what helps workers. The gains from innovation have to be wrenched from the hands of the ruling class through organized resistance.
- devmor 10mo ago> Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption, which has in turn created millions of jobs that didn't exist before and led to the US running the world's largest economy. Where did you get the idea that this was the cause that created millions of jobs and lead to the US running the world's largest economy, and not say - the knock-on effects of the US joining WW2 relatively late and unscathed, making it the only major world power left with a functioning enough industrial complex to export to war-ravaged Europe?
- milowata 10mo agoThe case against this EO is not “banning new technology”. It’s not allowing the federal government to ban any state regulation. And states having the power to make their own rules is maybe the most American value.
- SubiculumCode 10mo agoIt's not even that, as this isn't Federal Law.
- alterom 10mo agoIt's Federal Blackmail.
- Dumblydorr 10mo agoNot true that US is 100% gas pedal constantly on innovation. You’re forgetting labor reform movements and the service switch away from industry in the last few decades. Also the de-science-ing of the current admin has vastly reduced our innovative capacity, as well as the virtual decapitation of brain drain. Those next generation of brightest immigrants certainly aren’t coming here to deal with ICE, and that’s been the source of half the great minds in our country throughout its history, gone because of racism.
- mnky9800n 10mo agoI kind of doubt American scientists will leave en masse to go elsewhere. Their options are only Europe, the UK, or China. Most will not be willing to give up the salaries or the resources available to scientists in the USA, even with the current administration, to go live in strongly hierarchical academic systems that they don’t know how to navigate. Especially not for a 30% salary reduction (or more if they go someplace like France or Italy).
- dc396 10mo agoReread what the previous poster said. They were talking about folks coming to the US. Around 50% of doctorate level scientists and graduate students in STEM come from outside the US.
- x3ord 10mo agoCanada? Australia? 30% (or more) salary cut certainly applies but academic systems are similar and resources are in the same ballpark at top research universities.
- idiotsecant 10mo agoThey don't have to go anywhere if they just don't come here. American science works on the back of underpaid foreign born graduate students. If they aren't there, neither is American science. It's already started. And that's not even considering the other 'reforms' currently deliberately crushing academia. The first thing a new fascist regime needs to crush is the immigrants, and the second is academia. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/graduate-students-and-postdocs/2025/11/06/international-graduate-student-enrollment https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/graduate-studen...
- kibwen 10mo ago> Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption Until that "innovation and disruption" threatens any established player, at which point they run crying to the government to grease some palms. China is innovating and disrupting the entire energy sector via renewables and battery storage while the US is cowering in the corner trying to flaccidly resuscitate the corpse of the coal industry.
- SubiculumCode 10mo agoWhat ISNT an American value is Executive Orders trying to trump State powers without actual legislation.
- ajross 10mo ago> Going back to the Industrial Revolution the United States has been 100% gas pedal all the time on innovation and disruption Arguably true, but it's also been way ahead of the pack (people tend to forget this) on protection for organized labor, social safety net entitlements, and regulation of harmful industrial safety and environmental externalities. This statement is awfully one-sided.
- idiotsecant 10mo agoI am not sure you can call it being 'ahead of the pack' when we are currently furiously disassembling those forward thinking ideas.
- cyanydeez 10mo ago[flagged]