John D. Cook reframes motive question as irrelevant to policy impact
1 Sep 17 · 9d ago · 2 posts · 2 sources · development 1 of 1
In response to the competitive-gatekeeping analysis, a mathematician argues that the sincerity of executives' fears about AI risks is beside the point—what matters is the actual effect of the regulatory structures they're requesting, regardless of their stated intentions.
“Sincere people can still ask for exactly what an insincere person would ask for, and the request should be judged by what it does rather than by what motivates it.”
johndcook@mathstodon.xyzAI industry executives Calling for regulationKristof Poland Tech policy analystJohn D. Cook Mathematician and analyst
The whole story posts the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 2 voices · verbatim
-
When they say: Please, for the love of God, regulate us. Give us licences, audits, and bans before our digital God destroys us all. Here is what is actually being requested. Three things, in order. A regulatory body that they control, to prevent competition from catching up.
-
J
“The sincerity of the fear is beside the point. Sincere people can still ask for exactly what an insincere person would ask for, and the request should be judged by what it does rather than by what motivates it.” https:// x.com/kristof_poland/status/21 00607547900039483?s=46
All 1 developments of AI executives call for regulation; critics see competitive… →
MastodonX