Don't forget, the regulatory moat will also be complex enough that only existing trillion dollar companies can comply. That way they ban any new upstart domestic competition too.
Regulations to "slow down" AI are necessary so they can drop R&D expenses and finally make a profit. They can't keep these years of $100 billion of revenue on $200 billion in expenses going forever.
> It is like the best student in your classroom tells you 2 + 2 = 5, and you naturally feel compelled to believe him
Closer analogy: The dumbest student in a class tells you 2 + 2 = 5 and you believe them.
Even more apt analogy: You're the dumbest student in the class, the second-dumbest student tells you 2 + 2 = 5, but you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to know whether that student is smart or not so you just believe them.
By stealing text from the Bible rather than using your own words, you've just committed labor theft!
Of course that accusation sounds outrageous as it should. All human knowledge and progress has come by building on the works of those who came before us, as it should. Turning this on its head and calling it "theft of labor" is insane, as is asking others not to build on today's knowledge.
Or to steal some more human labor: "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
The particular brainless lawmaker behind this act went on to become President. I think that shows Americans love and reward brainless lawmakers for creating these brainless laws.
I'm pretty sure that he was loved and rewarded for being the star football player at the University of Michigan when they were the undefeated national champions two years in a row.
Years ago people warned that we had to limit the population to save the planet.
Now we're naturally reducing population growth, and people warn of disaster.
Gradually decreasing populations means that overall, fewer workers have to support more non-workers. We've had decades of productivity growth, with more to come if we're not stupid, making that extremely feasible.
I too am skeptical of government-granted intellectual monopolies, as Richard Stallman correctly names them. Trademarks are the least offensive of them because they expire relatively quickly and are designed to prevent genuine consumer confusion. Trade dress rules help prevent consumers from unwittingly buying products from Company A while thinking it's Company B.
This video game creates zero risk that a consumer will buy furniture from the wrong store, so trade dress should be inapplicable. IKEA would likely even lose in court. But as the article points out: legal proceedings ... get really expensive.
Regulations to "slow down" AI are necessary so they can drop R&D expenses and finally make a profit. They can't keep these years of $100 billion of revenue on $200 billion in expenses going forever.