[skybrian]

I disagree entirely. We shouldn't be hoping for a complex ecosystem of small, shady companies nobody ever heard of, like happened with ad networks [1]. Or worse, a scam-filled ecosystem like cryptocurrency. Or worse, an underground ecosystem like the criminals who share cracked passwords and credit card numbers.

Big companies are easier to regulate.

[1] https://lumapartners.com/lumascapes/

[pdonis]

> Big companies are easier to regulate.

But the problem isn't regulating the big companies, or the smaller companies, or underground entities. The problem is state-level adversaries like China who might misuse a technology, whether it's AI or anything else. Such adversaries can't be regulated by laws or executive orders or UN declarations; they have proven that many times in the past. The only way to control them is to have sufficient counter-capability against whatever assets they have. And government regulation is a terrible way to try to achieve that goal.

[skybrian]

State-level actors are one problem. People defrauding the elderly are a different problem. Ransomware is a third problem. They are all problems.

The idea that there's only one important problem is a fallacy.

[pdonis]

> The idea that there's only one important problem is a fallacy.

I have made no such claim.

The people advocating for regulating AI are claiming it will solve all the relevant problems--i.e., that it will prevent AI from doing great harm. So pointing out a problem that the regulations will not solve is refuting the claims the advocates of regulation are making. That was my point.

[skybrian]

That's surprising and seems like an overreach. Whatever those advocates claimed, it doesn't seem very relevant to deciding with or not a particular regulation is a good idea.

[pdonis]

> Whatever those advocates claimed, it doesn't seem very relevant to deciding with or not a particular regulation is a good idea.

I don't see why not. The whole point of regulations is to regulate, i.e., to keep the regulated activity within some particular bounds. If the regulation won't accomplish that, then it is pointless. Unless, of course, the actual purpose of the regulation is not the same as the purpose that is publicly stated--which is exactly what happens with regulatory capture.

[smokel]

One could also try to be friendly towards strangers, and not have them be their adversaries in the first place.

[pdonis]

> One could also try to be friendly towards strangers, and not have them be their adversaries in the first place.

We have tried this with China, going back to Nixon opening up trade relations in the early 1970s. It hasn't helped.

[smcleod]

Really? You think Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook etc…. Are well regulated?

The US has shown time and time again it’s complete incompetence when it comes to meaningful regulation of large companies.