I think you could have strengthened your argument here further by talking about how even in Darioâs op-ed opposing the ban on state-level regulation of AI, he specifically says that regulation should be ânarrowly focused on transparency and not overly prescriptive or burdensomeâ. That seems to indicate opposition to virtually any regulations that would actually directly require doing anything at all to make models themselves safer. Itâs demanding that regulations be more minimal than even the watered-down version of SB 1047 that Anthropic publicly claimed to support.
On one hand, it was a major contribution for a leading AI company to speak out against the moratorium as stipulated. On the other hand, Dario started advocating himself for minimal regulation. He recommended mandating a transparency standard along the lines of RSPs, adding that state laws âshould also be narrowly focused on transparency and not overly prescriptive or burdensomeâ.[11] Given that Anthropic had originally described SB 1047â˛s requirements as âprescriptiveâ and âburdensomeâ, Dario was effectively arguing for the federal government to prevent any state from passing any law that was as demanding as SB 1047.
I think you could have strengthened your argument here further by talking about how even in Darioâs op-ed opposing the ban on state-level regulation of AI, he specifically says that regulation should be ânarrowly focused on transparency and not overly prescriptive or burdensomeâ. That seems to indicate opposition to virtually any regulations that would actually directly require doing anything at all to make models themselves safer. Itâs demanding that regulations be more minimal than even the watered-down version of SB 1047 that Anthropic publicly claimed to support.
Youâre right. I totally skipped over this.
Let me try to integrate that quote into this post.
I just expanded the text: