I wonder who our representatives will make foot the bill for this one? Surely they won’t just socialize the losses with how well it worked the last dozen times… Right?
The usual financial crisis playbook has a remarkably consistent cast: 1. banks discover a new way to create risk, 2. executives collect bonuses while it works, and 3. taxpayers get invited to the emergency meeting when it doesn’t. 👉 Somehow the public is always a stakeholder in the losses, but never in the profits.
This is clearly the exit strategy here. That’s why AI companies’ try to label their products as “dangerous” and call for their own regulation. On the one hand, they want to be regarded as a matter of “national security” because they bloody well know that this gives them access to taxpayer money, which in turn can bail them out of their failing bet on data center build-out. On the other hand, it helps them shift liability onto regulators if things go south and allows them to say: “We told you we wanted regulation, but you wouldn’t listen.”
Don’t forget the other option 3: they want regulation to pull the ladder up behind them so there can be no competition. The open models from China have already proven their ‘special’ technology can be easily improved upon.
True; I skipped this part because the comment I was replying to was about taxpayer money bailouts. What you’re describing is the creation of an artificial moat against competitors. And it is correct that this is also a motive behind pushing for regulation.
I wonder who our representatives will make foot the bill for this one? Surely they won’t just socialize the losses with how well it worked the last dozen times… Right?
The usual financial crisis playbook has a remarkably consistent cast: 1. banks discover a new way to create risk, 2. executives collect bonuses while it works, and 3. taxpayers get invited to the emergency meeting when it doesn’t. 👉 Somehow the public is always a stakeholder in the losses, but never in the profits.
Ooh, I know, my comment was pure unadulterated sarcasm.
This is clearly the exit strategy here. That’s why AI companies’ try to label their products as “dangerous” and call for their own regulation. On the one hand, they want to be regarded as a matter of “national security” because they bloody well know that this gives them access to taxpayer money, which in turn can bail them out of their failing bet on data center build-out. On the other hand, it helps them shift liability onto regulators if things go south and allows them to say: “We told you we wanted regulation, but you wouldn’t listen.”
Don’t forget the other option 3: they want regulation to pull the ladder up behind them so there can be no competition. The open models from China have already proven their ‘special’ technology can be easily improved upon.
True; I skipped this part because the comment I was replying to was about taxpayer money bailouts. What you’re describing is the creation of an artificial moat against competitors. And it is correct that this is also a motive behind pushing for regulation.