Post

I'mTheProblemIt'sMe
@spin4srv.bsky.social

The current push for 'safety' is clearly: * an attempt to forestall regulation * an attempt to convey a willingness to deal with issues to sidestep liability issues for things _already done_.

ave
@ave.zone

how is begging for regulation an attempt to forestall regulation?

ave
@ave.zone

where exactly are they doing that? see for example: openai.com/index/fronti... they're asking for more liability, more oversight, and suggesting a set of regulations that'll bind the frontier labs more than smaller players. and USG is saying "no, zero regulations" in return.

openai.comA blueprint for democratic governance of frontier AIOpenAI outlines a blueprint for U.S. governance of frontier AI, proposing a federal framework for safety, resilience, and national security.

0 reposts1 like

I'mTheProblemIt'sMe
@spin4srv.bsky.social

This is _very_ old in the context of the discussion given they've acknowledged dozens of acts that are negligent and likely criminal (if a person did it the FBI would've picked them up). Naive to think their meetings with the admin are not all about this. www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/b...

nytimes.comThe A.I. Industry’s New Worry: ‘Liability Exposure’The prospect of artificial intelligence tools being used to do significant harm presents the companies and their leaders with a legal challenge.
I'mTheProblemIt'sMe
@spin4srv.bsky.social

SB 1119 caps liability as does the Illinois bill. Anthropic was against the latter for this reason. There will be no agreements about safety that don't include some liability protections. Why would they?

ave
@ave.zone

Where does SB 1119 cap liability? Do you imply that the penalties they can impose having maximum amounts is a liability cap? Illinois bill (SB 3444) did in fact cap liability, and you'll note that it's not in the list of regulations openai says they're supporting in that post.