OpenAI Lobbied the E.U. To Water Down AI Regulation

So Sam Altman gets in front of governments around the world, alarms everyone with science fiction about how he’s created the technology that might be the doom of the human race, asks for regulation, now doesn’t want regulation even though he’s stirred up a hornets nest of government panic. There’s leadership for you.<p>(Edit remove criticism of Altman too negative)<p>I suppose I should be careful saying stuff about zuckerberg like that. He might want to cage fight me.

Is this any surprise? Of course OpenAI now wants to maintain the status quo, so while they do want regulation to make it more difficult for new players to enter the market, they don’t want regulation to hinder their own business model. So they’re lobbying for exactly that.<p>They’re a for-profit business doing what for-profit businesses do. All I hope is that the politicians make a sensible choice, and find a balance between innovation and regulation.

We need regulation of AI because something on the Internet could confuse or mislead someone? Not every potential problem needs a law to protect us. What things is AI doing that existing laws against fraud aren&#x27;t protecting us from?

&quot;Open&quot;AI seems more and more like a douche bag company.<p>Sure they have a great product which is better than most competitors but now they try and use their new money to prohibit others of making progress.<p>I really hope regulators doesn&#x27;t get fooled by this old trick. Fuck OpenAI.

The question of a priori regulations is interesting because you basically have three options :<p>- ask people not involved in the field, and risk not understanding enough<p>- ask people involved in the field, and risk conflicts of interests<p>- don’t do it, and be blamed by future generations when a disaster happen.

Wait, I though HN came to consensus that OpenAI wants regulation to bar competition?

SV leaders often aim for disruption. One hypothesis is that Altman is maximizing OpenAI&#x27;s disruption with the publicity campaign.<p>There is also the megalomania trend. As Meredith Whittaker says: &quot;It&#x27;s a significant thing to cast yourself as the creator of an entity that could be more powerful than human beings,&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.technologyreview.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;06&#x2F;19&#x2F;1075140&#x2F;how-existential-risk-became-biggest-meme-in-ai&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.technologyreview.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;06&#x2F;19&#x2F;1075140&#x2F;how-exis...</a>

I thought after QatarGate the EU would do something to get rid of foreign influence.

Threads like these make me realize how little foresight there is into the genuine creation of Frankenstein&#x27;s Monster Situation.<p>Because you never learn the Monsters Name, nor was the Monster a Monster. Just Poof Here he is and there is a Mob with Torches. Rather than being seen in wonder and possibilities.<p>Not to mention at what Scale can we see one of these models in this Light? As Life enough for a Mob and Torches. Or how soon that will be. And who wants to be Frankenstein? As they remember his Name as the Monster&#x27;s.

I know a guy who thinks that driving at 60mph on a freeway should be legal but driving at 200mph shouldn&#x27;t. What a hypocrite.

For others having trouble accessing the OpenAI whitepaper:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;s3.documentcloud.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;23850240&#x2F;ares20226851313-openai_aia_white-paper.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;s3.documentcloud.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;23850240&#x2F;ares20226851...</a>

Regulators are essentially mafias.<p>&quot;You have to buy protection from us&quot; = &quot;You have to lobby to influence our decisions&quot;

Reading through the white paper leaves me feeling that some commenters here may have had an axe to grind already. The positions raised by OpenAI seemed to be focused on tailoring overly-broad language, and curtailing phrasing which confused possibility of misuse for intent to misuse.<p>The ai regulations have the possibility of becoming a GDPR-like boondoggle in the absence of domain-expertise from people in the field.<p>Researchers without a conflict of interest should also be heavily be engaged in this dialog as well, and the law specifically made flexible enough to adapt in the face of rapid change.