[65a]

It wastes taxpayer funds on enforcing a moat for Sam Altman, it establishes a fixed computational bound in a legal regulation, it tries to police a free speech activity because of possible harms (but not the harms directly), and it is likely to have negative national security implications as other (less regulated) regions deal with fewer lawyers as they advance the state of the art.

[mindslight]

Nice concise summary. The fundamental problem with all of these proposed "AI" "safety" regulations is that they adopt the corporate version of safety where LLMs refuse to talk about things that sound scary, mean, or even just controversial, while completely ignoring that these systems will be used to harm people at scale by turning gradually creeping corporate-individual power imbalances up to 11.

[65a]

This exactly. I would be much happier if the regulation was "don't use GPT-4 to decide when to kick Grandma out of the hospital" or "don't use a Llama finetune to make policing decisions", which is where I see the most certain need of regulation in the near future.

[UncleEntity]

Not to worry because "neither the Attorney General nor anyone else can throw people in jail for violating the bill".

A jury of their peers on the other hand...

I honestly quit reading after that.