[hn_throwaway_99]

So tired of seeing this line parroted everywhere without much thought given to what it actually means. Yes, regulation can add a burdensome layer, and regulatory capture can be a real thing.

But regulations for things like nuclear power plants, banks, insurance companies, elevator manufacturers, etc. are real because society recognizes the grave harm that happens when there are no additional checks on the system. Nobody says "Oh, all those big nuclear power plants just want regulations as a guard against competition." Certainly lots of crypto companies have said that about the banking system, and we all saw how that ended...

[rideontime]

You can simultaneously believe in the need for regulation while being skeptical of those calling for it to entrench their own positions, look what happened with SBF.

[Jcowell]

There’s a difference between demonstrating the belief of both ideas and dismissing one idea because the other is also true.

So fucking what if what’s his face want regulations for moats? It doesn’t detract for the real need of regulation.

It’s like if letting a baby fall to it’s death because if the main villain gets his hands on it he’ll get unlimited power

[rideontime]

Sorry, can you rephrase that? I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make.

[nextaccountic]

I agree that regulation can be good (and many times probably is), but the kind of regulation pushed by OpenAI will probably not be the good kind. There is just a conflict of interest here.

When the incumbents _oppose_ regulation that's usually a much better sign

[jackvezkovic]

Big nuclear power plants are not the ones behind regulations. Big oil and carbon-based power plants and others are the ones that lobby for nuclear power plant regulations.