Don’t Create a Captured Regulator for AI
\n\nThe artificial intelligence industry has managed to produce a regulatory debate in which nearly everyone’s preferred solution happens to suit his business model. Apparently, some tasks still require human intelligence.
\n\nAnthropic’s Dario Amodei wants outside evaluators and government-assisted coordination to slow development. Mark Zuckerberg and Jensen Huang put their faith in competition and liability. Huang told a Salesforce audience last week that safety is “an engineering problem, not a legal one” and that “we don’t need any new laws.” Some conservatives have warned against regulatory capture while treating product liability as a sufficiently binding constraint.
\n\nWe have already explained the trouble with letting incumbent companies design their own regulatory apparatus. George Stigler taught us the lesson years ago. The largest firms help establish the standards, master the approval process, and leave potential competitors struggling to afford admission. The problem isn’t “regulatory capture” of formerly independent supervisors so much as a regulatory apparatus that was born as a servant to incumbent industry interests.
\n\nBut contrary to what some of our allies on the right have argued, rejecting an AI cartel does not require believing that lawsuits will adequately discipline a company whose machines might…
Original source: https://www.breitbart.com/economy/
