OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

Post by LexGray » Fri, Mar 14, 2025, 5:12 AM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #413

woah wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"IP" is a very new concept in our culture and completely absent in other cultures. It was invented to prevent verbatim reprints of books, but even so, the publishing industry existed for hundreds of years before then. It's been expanded greatly in the past 50 years. Acting like copyright is some natural law of the universe that LLMs are upending simply because they can learn from written texts is silly. If you want t…

What AI companies are doing (downloading pirated music and training models) is completely unfair. It takes lot of money (everything related to music is expensive), talent and work to record a good song and what AI companies do is just grab millions of songs for free and call it "fair use". If their developers are so smart and talented why don't they simply compose and record the music by themselves? > not only a work…

Post by ghshephard » Fri, Mar 14, 2025, 5:38 AM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #233

arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe with regulatory capture the companies that pushed for the regulation in the first place at least comply with it (and hopefully the regulation is not worthless). This behaviour by ClosedAI is even worse: push for the regulation, then push for the exemption.

Regulatory capture is usually the company pushing for regulations that align with the business practices they already implement and would be hard for a competitor to implement. For example, a car company that wants to require all other manufactures to build and operate wind tunnels for aerodynamics testing. Or more realistically, regulations requiring 3rd party sellers for vehicles.

Post by Animats » Fri, Mar 14, 2025, 5:55 AM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #224

api wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI lobbied for restrictive rules, and now they want an "out" but only for themselves. Absolute naked regulatory capture.

Also textbook Fascism. Trump should have a Most Favored Corporate status, each corporation in a vertical can compete for favor and the one that does gets to be "teacher's pet" when it comes to exemptions, contracts, trade deals, priority in resource right access, etc.

Post by cnity » Fri, Mar 14, 2025, 6:00 AM UTC

hayst4ck wrote: post #442

mullingitover wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense This is a drastic take, I think to most of us in the industry "moat" simply means whatever difficult-to-replicate competitive advantage that a firm has invested heavily in. Regulatory capture and graft aren't moats, they're plain old corrupt business practices.

The problem is that moat is a defensive word and using it to describe competitive advantage implies that even anti-competitive tactics are defensive because that's the frame under which the conversation is taking place. Worse that "moats" are a good thing, which they are for the company, but not necessarily society at large. The larger the moat, the more money coming out of your pocket as a customer. It is insidious.

Post by jdiez17 » Fri, Mar 14, 2025, 6:07 AM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #224

api wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI lobbied for restrictive rules, and now they want an "out" but only for themselves. Absolute naked regulatory capture.

Also textbook Fascism. Trump should have a Most Favored Corporate status, each corporation in a vertical can compete for favor and the one that does gets to be "teacher's pet" when it comes to exemptions, contracts, trade deals, priority in resource right access, etc.