zlacker

I wasn't really thinking "complexity" in terms of formal academic problem scope, but more so "complexity" in the surface of how it interacts with the rest of the world, which is more along the lines of what would be relevant to a regulator.

A regulator doesn't really care about the internal complexities of an LLM and whether or not that is more difficult than cracking petroleum. They care more about how those things interact with the rest of the world. Software is pretty limited in how it interacts with the rest of the world.

>>kube-s+(OP)
> A regulator doesn't really care about the internal complexities

Seems like you are over simplifying the process and goals of those creating new regulations and law makers often have to care about the internal complexities because they care about the consequences new regulations will have.

When a law maker is making regulations for an industry they should care about the internal complexities since that determines the long term effects of the regulation. Law makes should care if new regulations kill small businesses or, in an extreme case that is not happening with the CRA, kills of an industry, since that effects the economy of the the country they are law makers for in addition to directly impact people represented by those law makers.

>>davora+gU1
No, they really don't give a hoot. They have an end goal they're trying to accomplish, and that's their priority.

They will seek feedback from industry experts to determine if their rules should be refined, which is what is happening. The details of any internal complexity of an industry is entirely delegated.

>>kube-s+6x2
> They will seek feedback from industry experts to determine if their rules should be refined, which is what is happening. The details of any internal complexity of an industry is entirely delegated.

We may be working with different definitions here. If they did not care they would not delegate away the details of the internal complexity.