7 ms·
Including a shutdown mechanism and doing an annual risk management review favors large incumbents?
by tzs 7mo ago
Including a shutdown mechanism and doing an annual risk management review favors large incumbents?
- autoexec 7mo agoThe shutdown mechanism would have existed anyway and a "risk management review" sounds exactly like the sort of toothless policy that's supposed to make people feel better without actually putting any limits or enforcement on the industry
- Onavo 7mo agoNot to mention 100K in consultancy fees for compliance.
- nradov 7mo agoWhy would the industry need any limits or enforcement?
- ctmnt 7mo agoI can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but it’s funny either way.
- ethbr1 7mo agoContrary take: it's easier to move "should" regulation to "must" regulation than it is to create the latter from nothing. E.g. HIPAA security rule updates
- derektank 7mo agoAnnual risk management reviews definitely favor large incumbents. Large incumbents have the ability to hire and maintain compliance teams. That burden is definitely a barrier to entry to new competitors (though not an insurmountable one).
- lokar 7mo agoBut it only applies to AI controlling critical infrastructure, you think this is an issue in practice? I would think if a power plant deploys some AI model to optimize something or other, it would be on the plant operator to perform the reviews, regardless of who they get the AI from.
- gwerbin 7mo agoIn practice, there will only be one or two "safe" AI vendors approved for such infrastructure. On one hand, that's probably a good thing. On the other hand, it's deeply anti-competitive and it's pretty much a recipe for indefinitely renewable contracts at arbitrary high prices that get passed on to taxpayers.
- pipes 7mo agoBut the overall picture is they are creating a lower regulation burden than California etc but you think this favours incumbents?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]