5 ms·

The US is very capitalistic. You may get regulation in France, but not the US. The Corporate desire for profit will overshadow the livelihood of billions. It's

The US is very capitalistic. You may get regulation in France, but not the US. The Corporate desire for profit will overshadow the livelihood of billions. It's been this way in the US since forever. Look what happened to the corporation that caused the Opioid epidemic. Nothing, they profited.

philwelch 3y ago
If that was true, the US would be producing orders of magnitude more nuclear energy than it is today. In reality many sectors of the US economy, such as housing, are utterly crippled by regulation.
- HervalFreire 3y ago
  There are always exceptions. Overall though corporations control the direction of the economy not employees.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    It's rather disingenuous to say "there are always exceptions". First off, if you're just going to talk generally, there are countries with less onerous business regulations than the United States. France isn't one of them, but Norway and Denmark are. More importantly, we are talking about regulating a specific technology, namely AI. The US has already demonstrated the ability to regulate a specific technology--namely nuclear energy--to a point where it is almost completely marginalized. So the notion that the US isn't capable of regulating an entire technology into near-oblivion is demonstrably false.
    - HervalFreire 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - philwelch 3y ago
        [flagged]
        HervalFreire 3y ago
        [flagged]
        philwelch 3y ago
        > I got it from my notes for an unrelated project. You can't find it because I wrote the notes. But this shouldn't matter. As long as the points are correct, you getting schooled by an AI is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The points don't specifically pertain to the US and have enough garbage weasel words that they don't even rise to the level of "correct". I'll make another comment that goes through them though. > General truths exist. You must dismiss exceptions to get at the general truth. Otherwise we'll be mired in details constantly. You can't just handwave away complexity. It's entirely possible for the US to have too little regulation in some fields and too much regulation in other fields. Your claim is that it's impossible for the US to erect regulatory barriers for AI. Whether or not the US, in general, has more or less regulations than other countries isn't sufficient to make that case. > The heritage foundation is a conservative think tank with a biased agenda. I never claimed otherwise. But why would a conservative think tank, which favors less business regulations, not even put the US on the top ten list of most "economically free" countries if the US is so underregulated? Why would they prefer the regulatory environment in Denmark and Sweden over the regulatory environment in the United States? > Check out which countries rank the highest for food regulations So when I bring up examples they're "exceptions", but while you bring up examples, they're examples of the rule. When I cite sources that do an overall survey of a country's regulatory environment, that's "biased", but when you cite a source that makes their money by helping companies comply with food regulations, that's just fine. > Not to mention labor regulations, mandatory five week vacations? Paternity leave? Unheard of in the US. Yeah, there are some places where the US has more regulations and some places where the US has less regulations. If we're talking about regulating AI, I think nuclear energy regulations are a much more analogous case than vacation and paternity leave. > It's an exception. I mean I literally gave you tons of examples how the US fails to regulate things. The ratio of failures to successes is what matters here. And the failures outnumber the successes by a huge amount. I only copied a fraction of my notes. Would you like more? I can run ChatGPT myself, thanks. Why don't you try thinking for yourself and considering the possibility that your presuppositions are wrong?
- Symmetry 3y ago
  That's not entirely true. Back in the 1970s when we tightened up regulation the companies operating nuclear power plants in the US were selling power onto the grid on a cost plus basis. That is, they'd be paid for their expenses plus a reasonable percentage on top of that. And there were regulators looking at their expenses to make sure they were reasonable. But when they, together with environmental activists, were able to get laws passed that drastically increased the cost of running a nuclear plant the regulators couldn't say no. So their costs increased, but then their profits increased as well through the magic of cost-plus contracts.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    That sounds like a classic example of regulatory capture, with incumbent nuclear power plant operators managing to serve their own interests and raise a regulatory moat against anyone coming after them to build more nuclear power plants.
Symmetry 3y ago
A more important factor than that, I think, is that the national security establishment in the US is the part of government most concerned with AI right now and they mostly see it as a matter of competition with China.

philwelch 3y ago

If that was true, the US would be producing orders of magnitude more nuclear energy than it is today. In reality many sectors of the US economy, such as housing, are utterly crippled by regulation.

HervalFreire 3y ago
There are always exceptions. Overall though corporations control the direction of the economy not employees.
- philwelch 3y ago
  It's rather disingenuous to say "there are always exceptions". First off, if you're just going to talk generally, there are countries with less onerous business regulations than the United States. France isn't one of them, but Norway and Denmark are. More importantly, we are talking about regulating a specific technology, namely AI. The US has already demonstrated the ability to regulate a specific technology--namely nuclear energy--to a point where it is almost completely marginalized. So the notion that the US isn't capable of regulating an entire technology into near-oblivion is demonstrably false.
  - HervalFreire 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - philwelch 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - HervalFreire 3y ago
        [flagged]
        philwelch 3y ago
        > I got it from my notes for an unrelated project. You can't find it because I wrote the notes. But this shouldn't matter. As long as the points are correct, you getting schooled by an AI is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The points don't specifically pertain to the US and have enough garbage weasel words that they don't even rise to the level of "correct". I'll make another comment that goes through them though. > General truths exist. You must dismiss exceptions to get at the general truth. Otherwise we'll be mired in details constantly. You can't just handwave away complexity. It's entirely possible for the US to have too little regulation in some fields and too much regulation in other fields. Your claim is that it's impossible for the US to erect regulatory barriers for AI. Whether or not the US, in general, has more or less regulations than other countries isn't sufficient to make that case. > The heritage foundation is a conservative think tank with a biased agenda. I never claimed otherwise. But why would a conservative think tank, which favors less business regulations, not even put the US on the top ten list of most "economically free" countries if the US is so underregulated? Why would they prefer the regulatory environment in Denmark and Sweden over the regulatory environment in the United States? > Check out which countries rank the highest for food regulations So when I bring up examples they're "exceptions", but while you bring up examples, they're examples of the rule. When I cite sources that do an overall survey of a country's regulatory environment, that's "biased", but when you cite a source that makes their money by helping companies comply with food regulations, that's just fine. > Not to mention labor regulations, mandatory five week vacations? Paternity leave? Unheard of in the US. Yeah, there are some places where the US has more regulations and some places where the US has less regulations. If we're talking about regulating AI, I think nuclear energy regulations are a much more analogous case than vacation and paternity leave. > It's an exception. I mean I literally gave you tons of examples how the US fails to regulate things. The ratio of failures to successes is what matters here. And the failures outnumber the successes by a huge amount. I only copied a fraction of my notes. Would you like more? I can run ChatGPT myself, thanks. Why don't you try thinking for yourself and considering the possibility that your presuppositions are wrong?
Symmetry 3y ago
That's not entirely true. Back in the 1970s when we tightened up regulation the companies operating nuclear power plants in the US were selling power onto the grid on a cost plus basis. That is, they'd be paid for their expenses plus a reasonable percentage on top of that. And there were regulators looking at their expenses to make sure they were reasonable. But when they, together with environmental activists, were able to get laws passed that drastically increased the cost of running a nuclear plant the regulators couldn't say no. So their costs increased, but then their profits increased as well through the magic of cost-plus contracts.
- philwelch 3y ago
  That sounds like a classic example of regulatory capture, with incumbent nuclear power plant operators managing to serve their own interests and raise a regulatory moat against anyone coming after them to build more nuclear power plants.

Symmetry 3y ago

A more important factor than that, I think, is that the national security establishment in the US is the part of government most concerned with AI right now and they mostly see it as a matter of competition with China.