3 ms·

Is anyone else getting regulatory capture play vibes from the media coverage of AI and data centers? It would be awfully convenient for the current big players

Is anyone else getting regulatory capture play vibes from the media coverage of AI and data centers? It would be awfully convenient for the current big players if friction was added to bringing additional large scale compute resources online. Existing data centers would be grandfathered of course…

brandon272 25d ago
I'm not even sure I'd point to "media coverage" when it is Anthropic's own employees stating plainly on Twitter that they think there is a >10% chance AI kills all humans within the next decade.
- sxghnyjexcd 25d ago
  Given that “this is just like skynet!!!” narrative seems to drive sales and not impede them, I wouldn’t be surprised. Nonsense. Of course. But for all non-tech-savvy this is a “bad” narrative in a good way. If it can kill humans in the future then it surely can make me a “what I would like in the 80s” photo, right?
lf88 25d ago
I think that media coverage simply reflects the growing anxiety among the public about the capabilities of new models and what future awaits us. Personally, I think that this anxiety is justified. If this leads to tough regulations about AGI/ASI (e.g., a permanent ban), I doubt that AI companies would benefit financially.
Smaug123 25d ago
Would it? Don’t they all desperately want more compute, and not the banning of new data centres?
- pfannkuchen 25d ago
  They want to make money. I don't picture new data centers being banned outright. I picture a lot more regulatory friction driven by public reaction which is in large part driven by media (which then also amplifies the perception of the public reaction). Regulatory friction is generally considered beneficial to established companies, because it makes it harder for new companies to enter the market and for smaller companies to expand. For example if in the 1960s computers became regulated because they will replace a lot of jobs or enable the building of advanced weapons or whatever, IBM would probably be in a very different position today.
aaroninsf 25d ago
As with the debate around open weights and self-hosting, "both can be true." There can be a quotidian benefit to existing leaders in friction. There are also real costs of various kinds associated with data centers, and, to the point in this case, there are also real risks associated with the current AI trajectory.

brandon272 25d ago

I'm not even sure I'd point to "media coverage" when it is Anthropic's own employees stating plainly on Twitter that they think there is a >10% chance AI kills all humans within the next decade.

sxghnyjexcd 25d ago
Given that “this is just like skynet!!!” narrative seems to drive sales and not impede them, I wouldn’t be surprised. Nonsense. Of course. But for all non-tech-savvy this is a “bad” narrative in a good way. If it can kill humans in the future then it surely can make me a “what I would like in the 80s” photo, right?

lf88 25d ago

I think that media coverage simply reflects the growing anxiety among the public about the capabilities of new models and what future awaits us. Personally, I think that this anxiety is justified. If this leads to tough regulations about AGI/ASI (e.g., a permanent ban), I doubt that AI companies would benefit financially.

Smaug123 25d ago

Would it? Don’t they all desperately want more compute, and not the banning of new data centres?

pfannkuchen 25d ago
They want to make money. I don't picture new data centers being banned outright. I picture a lot more regulatory friction driven by public reaction which is in large part driven by media (which then also amplifies the perception of the public reaction). Regulatory friction is generally considered beneficial to established companies, because it makes it harder for new companies to enter the market and for smaller companies to expand. For example if in the 1960s computers became regulated because they will replace a lot of jobs or enable the building of advanced weapons or whatever, IBM would probably be in a very different position today.

aaroninsf 25d ago

As with the debate around open weights and self-hosting, "both can be true." There can be a quotidian benefit to existing leaders in friction. There are also real costs of various kinds associated with data centers, and, to the point in this case, there are also real risks associated with the current AI trajectory.