[steveBK123]

I think the US labs are going with scare marketing as a regulatory moat.

Force US into putting laws in place that block out China firstly.

But secondly create regulations that have some cost to comply with such that the big 2-3 labs are grandfathered in by their scale.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

If that's the plan, today's failure by OpenAI looks really bad for any regulator who is trying to figure out whether to give OpenAI a license.

Any sort of warning or failure can always be written off as "marketing" to provide comfortable reassurance that there is no cause for alarm. There is an element of wishful thinking driving it, in my opinion.

What sort of warning or failure would be evidence against the "marketing" claims? Do we need to wait for a mass casualty event?

Best practice in safety engineering is to understand, diagnose, and respond to even small failures.

Why has Sam Altman worked to undermine doomers and downplay doom fears, if he benefits from incidents like this due to marketing?

https://xcancel.com/HumanHarlan/status/1965932275465597077#m

https://xcancel.com/AISafetyMemes/status/2062254769402699922...

[jackb4040]

There is no regulatory scenario where OpenAI doesn't get whatever they want. They are more a part of the US administration than not at this point. You would have to ignore all evidence to suggest that behaving responsibly has any effect on political outcomes in 2026.

[verve_rat]

Yeah, seems to be the direction the US is heading in. I'm interested to see what the response to that will be from the rest of the governments in the world.

No need for everyone else to cut their noses of to spite their faces.