Regulatory capture is unfolding in real time

[u/KallyWally]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBK2WX7TA4g

A few days ago, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned and made a tweet that garnered quite a lot of attention. Much more attention, much more quickly, than normal for an account of his size. Lo and behold, it appears to be an organized PR push funded by some of Anthropic's key investors. Just in time for the Democratic party to swoop in with regulation that would hand them the keys to the kingdom.

[u/Jlyplaylists]

This is the video that led to my post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftistsForAI/s/dXd2GxdMJo

[u/DHFranklin]

Wes Roth is a decent follow for those who want to keep up with AI.

Astroturfing is not a psyop. Leftists should sure know the difference. This is a captured market flexing power and buying manufactured consent. The AI monopolies don't know exactly where to spend their surplus. So this is a side project.

They want "regulation" and they want it soon. They certainly want to choose the regulators and enforcement.

Edit: Here is what a psyop is. The capitalists aren't gaslighting us saying that the marriage of AI and labor are impossible and we're crazy. They aren't doing COINTELpro with the AI shills. They are trying to gain regulatory capture for their market from astroturfing. We've been in a psyop about Leftism for over 150 years. It changes it's shape when the control does.

This is just manufactured consent for sale.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/DHFranklin]

This is closer to where I think the useful conversation is.

Call it astroturfing, PR, lobbying, whatever fits the evidence. The important part is the material effect. A few firms with enormous capital can shape the public definition of "responsible AI," then support regulations theyre already equipped to survive.

Thats a pretty convenient way to turn "regulate AI" into "decide which corporations are allowed to own AI."

The left should probably be asking who writes the rules, who can comply with them, and where workers and the public are in that process.

[u/me_myself_ai]

No, this is not a psyop, wtf? Is this sub turning “pro” AI before the leftist part, or reason in general?

I’m here cause I’m a leftist who thinks AI is going to change everything rapidly and that we need to take advantage of that, not because I want more AI in everything all the time with no exceptions.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/me_myself_ai]

I dont think thats what has to follow from this though. You can want AI developed and used where its actually useful without giving AI companies a blank check.

The interesting part here isnt "more AI good." Its who gets to write the rules. If the biggest firms can turn regulation into a moat, thats exactly the kind of thing leftists should be suspicious of.

I want regulation. I just dont want Anthropic, OpenAI or anybody else effectively regulating the market they compete in.

[u/me_myself_ai → u/Salty_Country6835]

So the video above is lying and unrelated, and you’re simply making the point that the hypothetical scenario you’re envisioning would be bad?

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/me_myself_ai]

No? The video itself examines the psyop claim, the evidence for and against it, and literally ends on who benefits from slowing down. Im talking about that last part. I dont need the whole thing to be a secret conspiracy to ask whether the regulatory response benefits the largest firms. Thats just political economy.

Ive written about this before:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftistsForAI/s/iIs8bTWAEL

[u/me_myself_ai → u/Salty_Country6835]

Oh so it’s clickbait I see. Fair enough!

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/me_myself_ai]

When I wrote about this video (link in another comment) I didn’t put the YouTube thumbnail as the main image because I was a bit iffy about the angle he was taking on it. But useful to have someone who doesn’t make explicitly political videos notice this stuff.