> 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?
>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.
I didn't handwave anything. My answer is sufficiently complex with multitudes of counter examples to your point.
The whole thing with the massive list of examples is to illustrate a general point on the lack of business regulation overall in the US.
I literally stated it's the ratio of failures to successes that matters here. If I can produce 30 examples of the US failing to regulate and you produce one, that speaks to an overall generality that eclipses your example.
The arena of scientific validation is hard to establish here. Neither of us can paint a picture of the entire domain of every single failure and success of regulatory laws in existence for the US. So given the nature of this debate just list as many general examples as possible.
You have nuclear power as one, that's it.
>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?
Don't know. The motivations of such groups are complex and multifaceted. Following some breadcrumb trail to get at the root of it is too much effort. I only know that this group is biased and not a neutral party. There's no point in vetting a known compromised source. Pick a valid one.
>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.
Yeah you cited one bogus example from the heritage foundation. All my examples are real. Unlike yours.
>I can run ChatGPT myself, thanks. Why don't you try thinking for yourself and considering the possibility that your presuppositions are wrong?
Highly disagree. Your answers are inferior to anything chatGPT can come up with so obviously you likely can't run it yourself.
> The whole thing with the massive list of examples is to illustrate a general point on the lack of business regulation overall in the US. I literally stated it's the ratio of failures to successes that matters here. If I can produce 30 examples of the US failing to regulate and you produce one, that speaks to an overall generality that eclipses your example.
Your list produces nothing of the kind, as I tediously went out of my way to demonstrate.
> I only know that this group is biased and not a neutral party. There's no point in vetting a known compromised source. Pick a valid one.
You haven't provided any valid sources yourself.
> Highly disagree. Your answers are inferior to anything chatGPT can come up with so obviously you likely can't run it yourself.
Well, that's just your opinion, and it's an opinion that reflects more on your poor judgment than on me.