I like the article's push for regulation, as if that isn't just an excuse for the existing big players to erect a moat around their technology to protect it from competition.
Regulate what exactly?
Does regulation include scikit-learn? If it is obvious that it does not include scikit-learn then what exactly makes it obvious?
Is it GPU use so we are regulating GPU use? Are we just regulating language models?
Is HN defined as social media?
How can we possibly get things "right" when we don't even bother to define what we are trying to regulate?
It seems obvious that whatever regulation is passed there will be loopholes big enough to drive a truck through that the regulation will be 100% useless. Either that or we go insane and try to regulate linear regression.
I wish lawmakers would first consider whether a purposes law is even complete and clear before deciding if they agree with it. If a law is full of vague descriptions, logical holes, or do much nonsense that the average person couldn't read and understand it there's no point in considering the bill's goals or intent.
I'm inclined to think taxing AI used to displace human labor is likely to be far more effective. But I'm not aware of any bills experimenting with this right now.