zlacker

>>staran+(OP)
If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.

>>garris+EJ
I don't expect the government to regulate any of this aggressively. AI is much to important to the government and military to allow pesky conflicts of interest to slow down any competitive advantage we may have.

>>flagra+mS
If you think that OpenAI is the Gov's only source of high quality AI research then I have a bridge to sell you.

>>dgrin9+X61
If you think the person you're replying to was talking about regulating OpenAI specifically and not the industry as a whole, I have ADHD medicine to sell you.

>>jakder+pf1
The context of the comment thread you're replying to was a response to a comment suggesting the IRS will get involved in the question of whether MS have too much influence over OpenAI, it was not the subject of general industry regulation.

But hey, at least you fitted in a snarky line about ADHD in the comment you wrote while not having paid attention to the 3 comments above it.

>>swores+DL1
if up-the-line parent wasn't talking about regulation of AI in general, then what do you think they meant by "competitive advantage"? Also, governments have to set policy and enforce that policy. They can't (or shouldn't at least) pick and choose favorites.

Also GP snark was a reply to snark. Once somebody opens the snark, they should expect snark back. It's ideal for nobody to snark, and big for people not to snark back at a snarker, but snarkers gonna snark.