[jandrewrogers]

The authority under which this was done has been operative and actively used for several decades. It isn't a partisan issue, it is a policy of American governance. Anyone that has worked on frontier "dual use" technologies will be familiar with the legal regime.

The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.

[digitaltrees]

But it was applied using principles of the rule of law with clear regulatory frameworks. This is not that

[jandrewrogers]

I’ve dealt with these regulations across several administrations. Nothing about this is novel, it is just receiving more attention than usual. Anyone could have started caring about this decades ago. You are making an argument from unfamiliarity with the regulations as practiced.

If it takes Trump to force people to educate themselves on how the US government actually works then I guess that is at least one good thing to come out of this.

[digitaltrees]

I am aware that the government has always been involved in these types of issues. Even a season finale of silicon valley shows pied piper being required to navigate government oversight when it became successful and implied it was a badge of honor / success.

But you have to admit this policy seems ad hoc and creates the impression of opening a wide door for corruption.

[sagarm]

Jumping in to reflexively defend the admin again, I see.

Is there any policy from this admin you don't support?

[jandrewrogers]

I am making an observation of fact. My feeds are full of ignorant hot takes that clearly demonstrate people have no clue about current law or how the government actually works. Your response is a perfect demonstration of this. This is neither unique to the current administration nor supporters of a particular party.

I don’t support the admin but if you are unwilling to engage with reality then that is on you.

[digitaltrees]

Make a case then based on Prior examples and why they are of the same nature and degree.

We are talking about the government giving exclusive access the the most transformative technology in human history to a select group of companies with no formal policy as to how you gain access, lose access, what you are expected to do with that access or commitment to transparency around any of this.

[davesque]

Also known as, the tu quoque fallacy. Just because politicians in both parties have been doing this for decades doesn't mean that this administration is not especially hypocritical for doing it after whinging so much about free speech and free markets.

[typeofhuman]

The only correct reply.

[digitaltrees]

If by correct you mean, inconsistent with the American tradition of the rule of law and commitment to equal protection of the law, and the emergence of an authoritarian kleptocracy that picks winners and losers. Then yes. Correct.

[dmix]

Which has been obvious trend the last few decades and is now being done openly and shamelessly like a tinpot dicator. Largely through a new populist protectionism ideology that is popular on social media. Which makes it much more public and well documented.

Usually companies do this stuff quietly with lots of small new rules via Congress creating barriers to entry or through national security angles like the Chips act which funneled money and tax breaks to huge weathy companies, or Boeing, or the car industry, etc.

Anthropic and OpenAI went hard in the paint pushing for AI safety and it backfired into hurting their companies rather than protecting their interests.

[digitaltrees]

Stop with the false equivalence.