Rendered at 18:23:02 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
k310 58 minutes ago [-]
This from the party of "no interference with business".
It's obviously a means to take control of AI, because the security argument fails Bigly after the firing of top security experts in the government (who might have the "wrong" views" )
Something about free speech being free for me but not for you?
andsoitis 56 minutes ago [-]
Do you think AI should be unregulated?
tssva 48 minutes ago [-]
If AI is going to be regulated those regulations should be debated in public and based upon the resulting laws passed by the legislative process and not determined by royal decree.
Whether that’s abuse or not I am not equipped to say with any confidence. I’d be curious to understand why you think this particular case is one of abusing executive authority and when an EO might not be such a case?
nradov 39 minutes ago [-]
Yes, if we're talking about running LLMs. It's just math.
23 minutes ago [-]
trial3 24 minutes ago [-]
yeah, in the way that knives are “just metal”
you’re being so reductive you’ve made any discussion about it completely useless
jMyles 19 minutes ago [-]
It's bizarre and frustrating that the language has come to view the word "regulated" as synonymous with "subject to statutory authority of the state."
Plenty of innovations are regulated (ie, its regularity maintained) without the state.
Do we really imagine that intervention by the imperial hegemon is likely to lead to regulation, rather than capture and weaponization?
albert_e 1 hours ago [-]
Timing around Anthropic valuation crossing OpenAI and getting ready for IPO ...
andsoitis 1 hours ago [-]
So this is going back to the spirit of what the Biden admin and the frontier labs wanted just recently?
Yeah, the order itself seems like a fairly reasonable response to Mythos level capabilities. It does solve one problem of the frontier labs, which is safely coordinating releases without hitting antitrust regulations. It also makes a bigger moat for incumbents.
It's obviously a means to take control of AI, because the security argument fails Bigly after the firing of top security experts in the government (who might have the "wrong" views" )
Something about free speech being free for me but not for you?
So if we’re going to be rational about it, I think it is better to critique the substance of the EO rather than its mere existence, which is common practice: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...
So in that spirit, what do you think of the substance?
How does that make it better for the current administration to do it?
Whether that’s abuse or not I am not equipped to say with any confidence. I’d be curious to understand why you think this particular case is one of abusing executive authority and when an EO might not be such a case?
you’re being so reductive you’ve made any discussion about it completely useless
Plenty of innovations are regulated (ie, its regularity maintained) without the state.
Do we really imagine that intervention by the imperial hegemon is likely to lead to regulation, rather than capture and weaponization?
https://www.bis.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administratio...
More regulated rather than unregulated (or very lightly regulated).
Most people would probably say that’s a good thing, if I read the tea leaves correctly.
IMO this isn't much more egregious than the "stop woke AI" executive order he signed in July 2025 which explicitly regulated the "ideology" of LLMs
https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/client-alerts/presiden...