IMO we have already got it wrong and put the cart before the horse. Political theater and existing leaders in the space talking their book.
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.
This is the fundamental problem with most laws and regulations. Language is limited and attempting to clearly define exactly what the law covers is nearly impossible, especially when it has to cover hundreds of millions of people.
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.
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.