Both things can be true.
replyThey want stable rules they can follow, which will limit their liability as long as they stay within them.
They also would like those rules to be as restrictive as possible towards their competitors.
They've spent close to $2T so far. At that scale the legal issues they've had are just the cost of doing business.
replyI'm quite sure that if there wasn't the existential threat of a lack of a moat, they would not be pushing for regulations at all.
The legal issues can sink their entire business model, not quite the cost of doing business.
replyA lot of things could sink their business model including opening the can of worms of the wrong regulations.
replyThat's the conspiracy theory, but there's no good evidence for it, and it doesn't really make sense in the long-run.
replyIt's the only thing that makes sense for a lot of these companies to survive to any long term when open models keep nipping at their heels for pennies on the dollar.
replyYou're assuming the open models will follow regulations though.
replyNo, I'm assuming that the open models won't/can't and will be banned from a lot tons of use cases that will mandate use of the large frontier shops in order to comply with said regulations.
replyThe theory is that open models cannot follow regulations and will therefore be banned or not eligible for many of the large contracts that the frontier labs will win.
replyNo good evidence other than their openly stated desire for that regulation? Dario and Sam have both made open pleas for it, repeatedly.
reply