Yes, those are two examples of situations with less race dynamics than just no regulated open market.
These are also examples of situation which are worse starting points for getting good regulations in the first place. But if we’re not going to try to regulate, then this does not matter?
I know that the text you originally quoted only argues against having a social movement, and not any regulation attempt. But the arguments do apply to any regulation attempt.
Any regulation attempt requires building blob of political will, somewhere.
The one example they give, the Interstate Commerce Commission, is an example of hostile take over of a regulatory institution. This mean that this is a cautionary tail of having a regulatory institution, regales of if it’s pushed for by popular demands or anything else.
If someone want’s to argue that we should not try to regulate AI by any means, then they would have to argue that that would lead to outcomes that are worse than free open competition.
If the bad outcome is just that this would make it harder for future regulatory attempts, then the conclusion is we should try but also be aware of the pitfalls and try to avoid them. The quoted critique has some value in pointing out dangers, but I don’t think it holds up as an argument not to try at all.
But the arguments do apply to any regulation attempt.
Yes but they could apply in significantly different amounts “quantitatively”. I think someone from the chat was pushing for behind-the-scenes diplomacy / negotiation instead of a public social movement. A private blob has some degree of natural protection that a public blob doesn’t.
The quoted critique has some value in pointing out dangers, but I don’t think it holds up as an argument not to try at all.
Yes, those are two examples of situations with less race dynamics than just no regulated open market.
These are also examples of situation which are worse starting points for getting good regulations in the first place. But if we’re not going to try to regulate, then this does not matter?
I know that the text you originally quoted only argues against having a social movement, and not any regulation attempt. But the arguments do apply to any regulation attempt.
Any regulation attempt requires building blob of political will, somewhere.
The one example they give, the Interstate Commerce Commission, is an example of hostile take over of a regulatory institution. This mean that this is a cautionary tail of having a regulatory institution, regales of if it’s pushed for by popular demands or anything else.
If someone want’s to argue that we should not try to regulate AI by any means, then they would have to argue that that would lead to outcomes that are worse than free open competition.
If the bad outcome is just that this would make it harder for future regulatory attempts, then the conclusion is we should try but also be aware of the pitfalls and try to avoid them. The quoted critique has some value in pointing out dangers, but I don’t think it holds up as an argument not to try at all.
Yes but they could apply in significantly different amounts “quantitatively”. I think someone from the chat was pushing for behind-the-scenes diplomacy / negotiation instead of a public social movement. A private blob has some degree of natural protection that a public blob doesn’t.
(As I’ve said elsewhere, I agree.)