I see it too, but worth noting that this is basically unprecedented at least within the last 25 years; I think you have to go back to export controlled cryptography for another example of this kind of abrupt and targeted regulation.

This arrangement is already dubiously legal. The government is already being sued over the Fable incident with Anthropic.

No amount of rules can stop people who are willing to break them. Only enforcement can.

It would only be ironic of you assume those same people who thing the EU over-regulates also support this US government regulation.

It's N=1, but I believe both that the EU approach discourages investment and innovation in the EU, and that this US policy will do the same in the US.

It’s a bit in general, because if you actually read the EU AI legislation, most of it follows the right ideas and provides more safety, in the sense that OpenAI and Anthropic used to pretend to care about, but never really did.

Maybe this is a good opportunity for the European AI companies to jump ahead?

On some level though we have to be cognizant of the potential for harm these models have.

LLMs are still a little loosey goosey, and we are right on the cusp (if not there already) for an agent to hack a bank and steal money for some rando teenager with a penchant for jail breaking.

The regulations are and will be negative, but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash.

Is it really ironic or just yet another example of how the current administration just keep finding ways to line their pockets? Big Tech has lots of money, and they'd just like to get a little taste. Placing arbitrary restrictions is a pretty good motivator for those being restricted to find some way to make necessary contributions.

Our AI czar, David Sacks, whined and moaned about the idea of regulation, even said Anthropic begging for some guidance was asking for “regulatory capture” and was gloating about how right he was they wanted it, 2 weeks ago.

I wonder if he understands why, now.

> there is no established policy on safety guarantees

Which is the government’s own fault.

Elon Musk talked back in 2018 about how he went to Washington and met with Obama and Congress, but they did nothing.

In 2020 Andrew Yang’s entire run for president was centered around the risk of AI displacing job. He lost, no one did anything.

A couple years later we say the consumer facing LLMs start to roll out. Still, no one does anything.

They have time to micromanage the industry, but in all these years they haven’t found the time to establish any meaningful policy?

I'm fine with this in principle, it's more like regulations last. They looked at the end result and decided it was too powerful to let loose. But also expect the Trump administration to unfairly use it as leverage against US corps.

Meanwhile EU prevented itself from building competitive LLMs in the first place.

This applies to most things when it comes to the USG/citizens. Protectionism is communist unless they do it. Thinking about developing a nuke? Well bomb you first despite being the only people to ever use them. Free speech and press - unless we don’t like what you say.

Let’s be real, as an EU citizen I have zero doubts that those models would also have been blocked if developed in EU.

I like the US approach better: regulate when the need for it arises, not before when you don’t know how the situation is going to evolve.