5 ms·
[flagged]
by Lionga 3mo ago
[flagged]
- sanderjd 3mo agoYes, correct. Singling out companies based on political beefs and to incentivize everyone to curry favor is the worst way to do regulation.
- Lionga 3mo ago[flagged]
- b0sk 3mo agoDuring the Obama administration, when solar companies were subsidized, the refrain was that "government was picking winners and losers". But now, there's a cut and dry case of one company getting targeted by the administration. Either ban all the powerful models or ban none of them.
- sanderjd 3mo agoYou can be annoyed by a person or company without wanting the federal government of the United States to grind a personal axe against that person or company. What you're advocating for here is banana republic governance. It's bad.
- InsideOutSanta 3mo ago> Anthropic CEO is full of shit, got what he deserved. This is an incredibly dumb way to judge a government's behavior.
- digitaltrees 3mo agoRemember arbitrary application of law expands and affects everyone. You will be affected. The advantage of the rule of law is the equal application to everyone.
- tiahura 3mo agoIsnt the situation sui generis?
- sanderjd 3mo agoNo, it is not. This is the entire thing about the rule of law. People constantly think their pet thing is sui generis. But actually the even handed application of the rule of law is a general good.
- tiahura 3mo agoArgue with Anthropic, Amazon, and the NSA. They all say it is.
- digitaltrees 3mo agoThe burden is not on them to show that. It’s on the government to show why the restriction is necessary to achieve a compelling public interest. I’ll make them argue that when you get Sam Altman to admit he lost the lead to anthropic
- tiahura 3mo agoIt’s on the government to show why the restriction is necessary to achieve a compelling public interest. Perhaps, ITAR and the like isn't my legal specialty. Isn't on a company's CEO to make sure everything is copacetic with its public and private partners?
- sanderjd 3mo agoNo, there's an entire legal system where these questions are meant to be hashed out. The current administration is subverting that system.
- sanderjd 3mo agoI disagree with them, but they aren't the ones I'm discussing this with here. I'm discussing it with you. What do you think?
- matheusmoreira 3mo agoYou're correct, yet it's also a fact that Anthropic was attempting regulatory capture in order to limit open weight models, cripple their competition and solidify their market position. Nothing wrong with enjoying the sheer Schadenfreude of the situation. Their self-serving fearmongering had the most hilariously unexpected result possible.
- sanderjd 3mo agoMaybe. But I disagree in general with "nothing wrong with enjoying the sheer schadenfreude of the situation". Schadenfreude is a description of a common human impulse that is not a good impulse!
- matheusmoreira 3mo agoNormally I would agree with you, but in this case I'm gonna make an exception. These are billionaires who campaign against open weight models. Their misfortunes are our freedom.
- sanderjd 3mo agoNope, if everyone makes exceptions for the people that specifically annoy them, then there will always be some exception for everybody. Much better to endeavor not to give into your own vices, even the understandable ones. You can come up with and advocate for a policy to be evenly applied to all the billionaires whose "misfortunes are our freedom", instead of supporting this corrupt favoritism.
- digitaltrees 3mo agoRegulation is a published rule applied equally to all the industry. Not one applied to a target for retribution or to extract submission
- virissimo 3mo agoApplying equally to all the industry is a characteristic of good regulation, not of regulation tout court.
- digitaltrees 3mo agoArbitrary enforcement of a regulations is against the principles of administrative law and gives rise to a cause of action that can set aside the governments action. So all regulation has that as an explicit assumption. There is also a case that it violates due process because anthropic wasn’t provided adequate notice before enforcement or an opportunity to challenge, respond, or take steps to comply. There is latitude for compelling state interests and national security is one with the widest latitude and potentially one that counts can’t review. But the court of public opinion may draw the inference that this is direct retaliation for refusing to make the models available for autonomous weapons and spying.
- wrs 3mo agoAnthropic published, not a two-word request for regulation, but a lengthy proposal for how regulation could work, with safeguards and due process. Instead, one morning the administration just woke up, grabbed the nearest hammer, and went smash, like it usually does.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]