The calls for AI slow down could be a cover for models reaching a plateau. If they don't improve each cycle at current or better rates the market values most certainly will drop and that could be ugly.
1. Already the case 2. Everything gets broken 3. What you're saying would be like putting property owners in jail for a break in because they did not lock the doors.
Your post makes it feel like you're part of a grand plan for regulatory capture... are you?
Strong liability enforcement could be helpful in the AI debate.
If your agent swarm goes rogue, you’re liable.
If your weakly protected model gets jailbroken, you’re liable.
If you serve a weakly protected OSS model, you’re liable.
I think he's right
With regulatory capture we will speedrun to a new feudalist time
Regulatory capture is where you pass regulation, or create government agencies to "protect the people" but in the end it helps protect companies because you stop new companies from being able to enter the market, because the cost of following regulation is too much compete for a startup
Neo feudalism will mean AI companies at the top and the rest of us as serfs paying them to use AI for literally everything
Next in regulatory capture will be banning open source and/or Chinese models, mark my words
That's a very dangerous thing because then there will never be new AI frontier companies being able to compete again and with exponential self improving AI that means essentially no competitors in any industry ever again as they will slowly suck up money in all industries
Safety concerns of AI are scary but the neo feudalism of AI with regulatory capture is a way more scary for me
Get ready for all of the investors in frontier model companies to suddenly flip to regulatory capture mode today
Their investments in frontier model companies are currently at risk/capped because the biggest buyers of tokens are embracing open-source models: vertical AI companies, the government and enterprises
That’s all this is about: stopping open source — which I’ve been saying on the pod for two years
If you want safety, you want disclosure — and open source is the ultimate disclosure process
AmyPeikoff Cherokeewilly The AASM position statement is clear: permanent standard time best aligns with human circadian biology and is optimal for health/safety. It recommends ditching seasonal DST changes entirely, citing evidence that they (and permanent DST) disrupt rhythms via delayed morning light.
Stanford Medicine modeling (PNAS) found clock changes cause the *worst* circadian burden nationwide. Permanent standard time minimizes it for most people—potentially ~2.6M fewer obesity diagnoses and ~300k fewer strokes yearly vs. current system. Permanent DST helps but delivers only ~2/3 the benefit because mornings stay darker longer, weakening light-based entrainment.
Morning sunlight is a primary zeitgeber for the clock; misalignment independently raises metabolic and other risks. Outdoor exercise is valuable for obesity too, but the circadian data stands on its own—plenty of peer-reviewed support here.