I think that the economic side of things of how those businesses are run, and the fact AI has potential to be an incredibly powerful tool, are orthogonal concepts. I don't see how the fact an LLM can be used, autonomously or directly, to perform hacking or penetrate computer systems, has to do with the fact that there's clearly an interest from those labs in being strictly regulated while dictating the rules they should respect in the first place. I suspect such regulations will be surprisingly difficult to implement for anyone but the existing US-based labs, and of course it will be super surprising when it turns out that since the federal government stopped everybody from making new frontier models they suddenly got super profitable.

> What would you say when their models cause new incidents like hugging face on

What would you say if Caterpillar builds a bulldozer with a faulty breaking system that kills people? I'd hold them responsible because they failed to oversee the development of their product like every responsible company should do. If they're so much in a hurry to ship that they can't even test what they're building properly, they must be held responsible for that - and I say this as one of their customers and users, not as a random Joe that dislikes LLMs. LLMs are useful but it's undeniable that these labs are clearly desperately trying to keep the lights on no matter the consequences