[CamperBob2]

We know that excessive premature regulation by captive government agencies hurts innovation and empowers competing nations. We don't know that AI companies are growing too fast, or that Something Bad Will Happen if oversight doesn't come soon.

Seems like an easy choice. We'd never have left the caves if we allowed the precautionary principle to dictate our lives.

[johnnyanmac]

Why are we in a rush to "compete with China" on this front? I don't exactly view that country as the bastions of a government who wants to promote the welfare of its citizens. They already I famously don't comply with copyright but no one is. Clamoring to take out the patent office to "compete".

What is being a few years behind on China going to do to the western economy to make it not worth slowing down and considering the ethical quandaries? We know from last decade how hard it can be to regulate back issues once companies overreach.

[CamperBob2]

If AI turns out to be no big deal, then you're right, there's no rush to compete. And there's also no rush to regulate. Conversely, if AI turns out to to be a huge deal, then we certainly won't end up wishing we'd held ourselves back with regulation while rival/adversary nations plowed forward at full speed.

Look at the people who will be doing the regulating. They'll get right on it after they decide which flavor of genocide to support, what books your local library gets to purchase, and who gets to use what restroom.

Basically there is almost zero upside to early government intervention, but the potential downside to regulation is unbounded. That makes it a very easy call, to my way of thinking.