[xinayder]

If your sole business model depends on having no regulation then your business model is wrong and predatory.

Regulation doesn't hinder innovation, it's just that CEOs want that quick buck instead of being responsible and using regulation for their advantage.

[BobbyJo]

This is a bad counterpoint to "more regulation makes business harder". No regulation at all is probably the hardest business environment possible, but too much regulation is bad too.

[jmward01]

Quantity of regulation isn't the point. It is quality. The right regulations are the right regulations. They mitigate risks and can encourage innovation. 'too much/too little' arguments are almost universally wrong.

[xinayder]

There is no AI regulation in the US and look at where we are, everyone depends on it, SOTA models are doing CSAM and porn deepfakes, and there's no regulation in the US to prevent this from happening

nor there is regulation to inform a user something uses AI or the dangers of being dependent on this magical oracle.

[vanviegen]

> There is no AI regulation in the US

Well, there's the White House blocking models on a whim. I guess that's the closest they'll get to something resembling regulation.

[nozzlegear]

Too much regulation completely crippled the supersonic commercial flight industry.

[bob001]

So most people not wanting to hear sonic booms to benefit a small group of high wealth fliers is bad?

[xinayder]

Or having mandatory security checks in place after frequent accidents on supersonic planes is bad...

The aviation industry must be one of the most regulated ones and it's entirely necessary to guarantee the safety of passengers and crew. You don't see anyone complaining about it except Boeing who failed QA in the past couple of years and killed some hundreds of people due to their oversight.

[nozzlegear]

Perhaps if the industry had been allowed to develop, we'd have some freaky ass new and innovative tech that would've abated the problem. The world may never know!

[bob001]

So basically "if they were only allowed to cause harm then maybe maybe one day they might have found a way to on their own for no profit stop doing that harm"? Yeah, no thank you. Also, all of corporate history shows that without a government or public pushback "will stop doing harm" never happens.

[nozzlegear]

> "if they were only allowed to cause harm then maybe maybe one day they might have found a way to on their own for no profit stop doing that harm"

You've put such discrediting words in my mouth with your straw man, touche! By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?

[vanviegen]

The industry was allowed to develop, but not allowed to cause harm.

[nozzlegear]

Substitute develop with innovate and perhaps the thrust of my comment becomes more clear?

[FpUser]

>"Regulation doesn't hinder innovation"

General statement that means zilch. Regulation depending on particular conditions can definitely curtail innovation or destroy it completely. Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart.

[Rabbit504030201]

"Bureaucracy wants to regulate everything including how often we fart."

That is "reductio ad absurdum".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[xinayder]

As I said, and others pointed out:

quality regulations don't curtail innovation.

I repeat, if your business model (which like the big majority of the entrepreneurial world is based on) is against regulation, it's wrong.

I don't think it's acceptable to have a billionaire tech bro dictating everything I do in my life while he gets rich by selling my data. One of the reasons regulation exists is to protect customers.

It's about damn time the business world moved away from the capitalism mindset that you NEED to explore the consumer to be successful. We have a lot of examples in Europe where if the company is even a bit less shitty and is sympathetic to the customer, it increases trust and brings in more revenue because your customers trust it.