zlacker

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+(OP)
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+Be
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+3n
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+hT
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.

>>dgrin9+Be
My comment here was actually meant to talk about AI broadly, though I can get the confusion here as the original source thread here is about OpenAI.

I also don't expect the government to do anything about the OpenAI situation, to be clear. Though my read is actually that the government had to be evolved behind closed doors to move so quickly to get Sam back to OpenAI. Things moved much too quickly and secretively in an industry that is obviously of great interest to the military, there's no way the feds didn't put a finger on the scale to protect their interests at which point they wouldn't come back in to regulate.