Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

We should place penalties on implementing regulation. "The problem isn't regulation itself, it's adding more rules without removing or improving old ones. The argument is that governments should face stronger incentives to review, refine, or repeal existing regulations instead of continually introducing new ones. Without that discipline, regulation accumulates... show more

Harry Stebbings

558,746 subscribers

15,757 views • 4 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🧠David Friedberg explains the great hope of Artificial Superintelligence: Massive leverage on time to solve thousand-year problems "I don't think that humans are limited in our ability to solve problems." "I think we're limited in terms of time, and what digital intelligence gives us is leverage on time so that we can now tackle ever more complex tasks." "This idea of superintelligence is that it could give us immense leverage in solving that complex problem that we otherwise may be challenged to solve over decades, or hundreds of years, or think about one day solving a problem that would take humans thousands of years to solve." "So if I as a human said, 'I would like to harness fusion power similar to what the sun uses to make energy, and I wanna do that on Earth,' today, we're in, call it year 40 or 50 of a research cycle of humans trying to solve that particularly complex problem." "It's a scientific problem, it's a discovery problem, it's an engineering problem." "Functionally, leveraging to complexity is where this becomes super compelling for humans." "And it's why I think we can and should be highly optimistic about living very long lives, and traveling anywhere we want, and having abundance in food, and having abundance in resources, and having abundance in recouping our time to do the things we want to do instead of the things that we have to do today."

🧠David Friedberg explains the great hope of Artificial Superintelligence: Massive leverage on time to solve thousand-year problems "I don't think that humans are limited in our ability to solve problems." "I think we're limited in terms of time, and what digital intelligence gives us is leverage on time so that we can now tackle ever more complex tasks." "This idea of superintelligence is that it could give us immense leverage in solving that complex problem that we otherwise may be challenged to solve over decades, or hundreds of years, or think about one day solving a problem that would take humans thousands of years to solve." "So if I as a human said, 'I would like to harness fusion power similar to what the sun uses to make energy, and I wanna do that on Earth,' today, we're in, call it year 40 or 50 of a research cycle of humans trying to solve that particularly complex problem." "It's a scientific problem, it's a discovery problem, it's an engineering problem." "Functionally, leveraging to complexity is where this becomes super compelling for humans." "And it's why I think we can and should be highly optimistic about living very long lives, and traveling anywhere we want, and having abundance in food, and having abundance in resources, and having abundance in recouping our time to do the things we want to do instead of the things that we have to do today."

The All-In Podcast

53,187 views • 1 year ago

Ben Horowitz on where AI regulation should actually focus: "The model is a model. It's a mathematical model. It predicts things. It's not a sentient being." "If you ban the technology, or infringe people's ability to do mathematics... that has hundred-year implications." "Don't regulate math. Regulate the applications of that math." "If somebody uses AI to break into a bank or make a robot that shoots somebody, that's illegal. But the technology itself shouldn't be illegal." benahorowitz.eth with David Solomon and David Haber

Ben Horowitz on where AI regulation should actually focus: "The model is a model. It's a mathematical model. It predicts things. It's not a sentient being." "If you ban the technology, or infringe people's ability to do mathematics... that has hundred-year implications." "Don't regulate math. Regulate the applications of that math." "If somebody uses AI to break into a bank or make a robot that shoots somebody, that's illegal. But the technology itself shouldn't be illegal." benahorowitz.eth with David Solomon and David Haber

a16z

30,255 views • 5 months ago

As Co-Founder and CEO of Coinbase 🛡️, Brian Armstrong has long operated at the fault line where regulation meets innovation. And today, he highlighted why that balance matters more than ever. Armstrong noted that well-designed systems should remove the risks that are truly corrosive like fraud, without suffocating the healthy risks that drive discovery. As he put it, a thousand ideas should be allowed to launch, even if most of them never make it. That is the only way you find the exceptional ones. Speaking at #ADFW2025, he recognised Abu Dhabi and the UAE for setting this equilibrium through clear rules, credible oversight, and the freedom for builders to test, iterate and occasionally fail.

As Co-Founder and CEO of Coinbase 🛡️, Brian Armstrong has long operated at the fault line where regulation meets innovation. And today, he highlighted why that balance matters more than ever. Armstrong noted that well-designed systems should remove the risks that are truly corrosive like fraud, without suffocating the healthy risks that drive discovery. As he put it, a thousand ideas should be allowed to launch, even if most of them never make it. That is the only way you find the exceptional ones. Speaking at #ADFW2025, he recognised Abu Dhabi and the UAE for setting this equilibrium through clear rules, credible oversight, and the freedom for builders to test, iterate and occasionally fail.

ADFW

105,192 views • 7 months ago

Elon Musk: It should be harder to establish a rule than to remove it. “I'm not completely libertarian in the sense I don't think there should be regulations at all. I just think that the natural bias of regulations is to last forever. You have to actively delete a regulation or a law, the way things are set up in most laws. Some laws have sunset provisions. And the problem with that is you get vested interests who like that law, and there's an inertia around it. And so over time, the body of law and regulations grows and grows and grows. It is something that I think is not ultimately good for society. So, in fact, I think it would generally be a good idea to have it such that it's hard to establish a rule and easy to remove one.” Montana Job Summit, September 16, 2013

Elon Musk: It should be harder to establish a rule than to remove it. “I'm not completely libertarian in the sense I don't think there should be regulations at all. I just think that the natural bias of regulations is to last forever. You have to actively delete a regulation or a law, the way things are set up in most laws. Some laws have sunset provisions. And the problem with that is you get vested interests who like that law, and there's an inertia around it. And so over time, the body of law and regulations grows and grows and grows. It is something that I think is not ultimately good for society. So, in fact, I think it would generally be a good idea to have it such that it's hard to establish a rule and easy to remove one.” Montana Job Summit, September 16, 2013

ELON CLIPS

32,677 views • 9 months ago

ELON: WE’VE GOT TO RESTORE FREEDOM! “I think we need to do wholesale removal of regulations. Regulations basically should be default gone. Not default there, default gone. If it turns out that we missed the mark on a regulation, always add it back in. These regulations are added willy-nilly all the time. We've just got to do wholesale spring cleaning of regulation and get the government off the backs of everyday Americans, so people can get things done. The government doesn't have a sort of boot on the neck of the average American. What are the core founding values of this country, what has made America great, what will lead to further greatness? It's a focus on merit, that you get ahead as a function of your hard work and skill, and that you have freedom. This is the land of freedom and opportunity. If the government has millions of regulations holding everyone back, it's not freedom. We've got to restore freedom.” Source: DOGE Update, 𝕏 Spaces, February 3, 2025

ELON: WE’VE GOT TO RESTORE FREEDOM! “I think we need to do wholesale removal of regulations. Regulations basically should be default gone. Not default there, default gone. If it turns out that we missed the mark on a regulation, always add it back in. These regulations are added willy-nilly all the time. We've just got to do wholesale spring cleaning of regulation and get the government off the backs of everyday Americans, so people can get things done. The government doesn't have a sort of boot on the neck of the average American. What are the core founding values of this country, what has made America great, what will lead to further greatness? It's a focus on merit, that you get ahead as a function of your hard work and skill, and that you have freedom. This is the land of freedom and opportunity. If the government has millions of regulations holding everyone back, it's not freedom. We've got to restore freedom.” Source: DOGE Update, 𝕏 Spaces, February 3, 2025

Mario Nawfal

58,482 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk: I'm not completely libertarian. I just think it should be harder to establish a rule than to remove it. “I'm not completely libertarian in the sense I don't think there should be regulations at all. I just think that the natural bias of regulations is to last forever. You have to actively delete a regulation or a law, the way things are set up in most laws. Some laws have sunset provisions. And the problem with that is you get vested interests who like that law, and there's an inertia around it. And so over time, the body of law and regulations grows and grows and grows. It is something that I think is not ultimately good for society. So, in fact, I think it would generally be a good idea to have it such that it's hard to establish a rule and easy to remove one.” Montana Job Summit, September 16, 2013

Elon Musk: I'm not completely libertarian. I just think it should be harder to establish a rule than to remove it. “I'm not completely libertarian in the sense I don't think there should be regulations at all. I just think that the natural bias of regulations is to last forever. You have to actively delete a regulation or a law, the way things are set up in most laws. Some laws have sunset provisions. And the problem with that is you get vested interests who like that law, and there's an inertia around it. And so over time, the body of law and regulations grows and grows and grows. It is something that I think is not ultimately good for society. So, in fact, I think it would generally be a good idea to have it such that it's hard to establish a rule and easy to remove one.” Montana Job Summit, September 16, 2013

ELON CLIPS

51,729 views • 1 year ago

Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI, on the exact conditions that would require shutting down AI: "If an AI can recursively self-improve, set its own goals, act autonomously, and accrue its own resources, that would be a very powerful system that would require military-grade intervention to be able to stop." He identifies four specific criteria that, taken together, would cross the line: 1. Goal autonomy — it sets its own objectives 2. Autonomous action — it operates without humans 3. Resource acquisition — it can accumulate its own means 4. Recursive self-improvement — the AI can modify its own code Suleyman is clear that the danger only emerges when all four converge. His proposed solution is regulation with precision: "We should just stop freaking out about the regulation part. It's necessary to have regulation. It's good to have regulation. It needs to happen at the right time and in the right way." He draws a direct parallel to nuclear energy: Just as you can't privately build a nuclear power plant regardless of wealth, certain AI capabilities must be treated as restricted activities given their one-to-many impact. The responsibility, he says, sits with model developers, their peers, and governments to audit and regulate these capabilities before they mature. We already know how to regulate dangerous technology. We've done it before. The real question is whether we'll move fast enough to do it right.

Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI, on the exact conditions that would require shutting down AI: "If an AI can recursively self-improve, set its own goals, act autonomously, and accrue its own resources, that would be a very powerful system that would require military-grade intervention to be able to stop." He identifies four specific criteria that, taken together, would cross the line: 1. Goal autonomy — it sets its own objectives 2. Autonomous action — it operates without humans 3. Resource acquisition — it can accumulate its own means 4. Recursive self-improvement — the AI can modify its own code Suleyman is clear that the danger only emerges when all four converge. His proposed solution is regulation with precision: "We should just stop freaking out about the regulation part. It's necessary to have regulation. It's good to have regulation. It needs to happen at the right time and in the right way." He draws a direct parallel to nuclear energy: Just as you can't privately build a nuclear power plant regardless of wealth, certain AI capabilities must be treated as restricted activities given their one-to-many impact. The responsibility, he says, sits with model developers, their peers, and governments to audit and regulate these capabilities before they mature. We already know how to regulate dangerous technology. We've done it before. The real question is whether we'll move fast enough to do it right.

Big Brain AI

25,219 views • 4 months ago

Elon Musk, 11 years ago: Having too many laws and regulations is not good for society. “The natural bias of regulations is to last forever. You have to actively delete a regulation or a law, the way things are set up in most laws. Some laws have sunset provisions. And the problem with that is you get vested interests who like that law. And there's an inertia around it. And so, over time, the body of laws and regulations grows and grows and grows. It is something that I think is not ultimately good for society. So, in fact, I think it would generally be a good idea to have it such that it's hard to establish a rule and easy to remove one.” Montana Job Summit, 2013

Elon Musk, 11 years ago: Having too many laws and regulations is not good for society. “The natural bias of regulations is to last forever. You have to actively delete a regulation or a law, the way things are set up in most laws. Some laws have sunset provisions. And the problem with that is you get vested interests who like that law. And there's an inertia around it. And so, over time, the body of laws and regulations grows and grows and grows. It is something that I think is not ultimately good for society. So, in fact, I think it would generally be a good idea to have it such that it's hard to establish a rule and easy to remove one.” Montana Job Summit, 2013

ELON CLIPS

22,234,517 views • 1 year ago

NEW: Jeff Bezos says he's 'very optimistic' about the incoming Trump administration, offering to help streamline regulations and dismissing concerns about Elon Musk leveraging government power against competitors. "I'm actually very optimistic this time around. He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation and from my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm going to help him because we do have too many regulations in this country." "If you look at the national debt and how gigantic it is as a portion of GDP, these are real long-term problems, and the way we get out of them is by outgrowing them. You're going to solve the problem of the national debt by making it a smaller percentage of GDP. Not by shrinking the national debt but by growing the GDP. You have to grow the denominator, and that means you have to grow GDP at, you know, 3, 4, or 5 percent a year." "If you can do that, this is a very manageable problem. So we need a growth orientation in this country. The most important thing is a growth mindset. And we are the luckiest country in the world. We have all these natural resources, including energy independence. We have the best risk capital system in the world..." "But we are burdened by excessive permitting and regulation. You can't build a bridge, and we see these examples all the time. I'm very optimistic that President Trump is serious about this regulatory agenda, and I think that he has a good chance of succeeding..." "You've probably grown in the last eight years. He has, too. What I've seen so far is that he is calmer than he was the first time, more confident, and more settled." Elon Musk Donald J. Trump Jeff Bezos

NEW: Jeff Bezos says he's 'very optimistic' about the incoming Trump administration, offering to help streamline regulations and dismissing concerns about Elon Musk leveraging government power against competitors. "I'm actually very optimistic this time around. He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation and from my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm going to help him because we do have too many regulations in this country." "If you look at the national debt and how gigantic it is as a portion of GDP, these are real long-term problems, and the way we get out of them is by outgrowing them. You're going to solve the problem of the national debt by making it a smaller percentage of GDP. Not by shrinking the national debt but by growing the GDP. You have to grow the denominator, and that means you have to grow GDP at, you know, 3, 4, or 5 percent a year." "If you can do that, this is a very manageable problem. So we need a growth orientation in this country. The most important thing is a growth mindset. And we are the luckiest country in the world. We have all these natural resources, including energy independence. We have the best risk capital system in the world..." "But we are burdened by excessive permitting and regulation. You can't build a bridge, and we see these examples all the time. I'm very optimistic that President Trump is serious about this regulatory agenda, and I think that he has a good chance of succeeding..." "You've probably grown in the last eight years. He has, too. What I've seen so far is that he is calmer than he was the first time, more confident, and more settled." Elon Musk Donald J. Trump Jeff Bezos

KanekoaTheGreat

1,948,433 views • 1 year ago

NEW: Joe Lonsdale flips AI regulation debate on its head Maria Bartiromo: AI is moving faster than regulation. Does that concern you? Joe: What I'm concerned by is that AI is moving faster than the ability for the government to allow us to do this. AI is helping cure all these new diseases... But we have an FDA that's not letting us save lives... The FDA is not set up for the AI age. It's set up to let China take over the sector... There are more big [pharma] deals buying Chinese drugs [than U.S. drugs]; there are more clinical trials going on in China. We need a leader of the FDA that will push back on the bureaucracy, that will say, we are going to both be safe and we're going to go faster and save more lives.

NEW: Joe Lonsdale flips AI regulation debate on its head Maria Bartiromo: AI is moving faster than regulation. Does that concern you? Joe: What I'm concerned by is that AI is moving faster than the ability for the government to allow us to do this. AI is helping cure all these new diseases... But we have an FDA that's not letting us save lives... The FDA is not set up for the AI age. It's set up to let China take over the sector... There are more big [pharma] deals buying Chinese drugs [than U.S. drugs]; there are more clinical trials going on in China. We need a leader of the FDA that will push back on the bureaucracy, that will say, we are going to both be safe and we're going to go faster and save more lives.

American Optimist

57,521 views • 1 month ago

Europe should look at what the UAE have created. They're number three in AI now and they have nothing to do with Europe in terms of regulation. So the answer to Europe is, after the Second World War, they screwed themselves. They put a regulatory environment in so onerous that everybody just brought their dough to the United States and developed their companies here and stole the people that were innovators. And I rest my case on this one: we took the guys that were bombing us, the V-2 rocket scientists, and made them Americans and stuck them here and they built NASA. I mean, that's Europe losing the best and brightest geniuses. By the way, we shouldn't change that policy. We should keep bringing over any genius from anywhere and train them here, otherwise the Chinese will.

Europe should look at what the UAE have created. They're number three in AI now and they have nothing to do with Europe in terms of regulation. So the answer to Europe is, after the Second World War, they screwed themselves. They put a regulatory environment in so onerous that everybody just brought their dough to the United States and developed their companies here and stole the people that were innovators. And I rest my case on this one: we took the guys that were bombing us, the V-2 rocket scientists, and made them Americans and stuck them here and they built NASA. I mean, that's Europe losing the best and brightest geniuses. By the way, we shouldn't change that policy. We should keep bringing over any genius from anywhere and train them here, otherwise the Chinese will.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

38,272 views • 5 months ago

Why are EU leaders rushing to deregulate at the exact moment Trump is demanding Europe dismantle its regulations? This should make you suspicious: If America is pushing Europe to abandon its regulatory superpower over 450 million consumers, it's because they're terrified of what it means for US companies. Europe has immense power here. We could exclude Big Tech from our markets entirely if they don't play by our rules. Instead? EU leaders are voluntarily gutting laws on tech, but also climate, chemicals, doing Trump's work for him. Paradoxically, the EU simplification drive won't free Europe from Americ: it will make Europe even more dependent. To know more I recommend you to listen to the latest episode of EU Scream with James Kanter

Why are EU leaders rushing to deregulate at the exact moment Trump is demanding Europe dismantle its regulations? This should make you suspicious: If America is pushing Europe to abandon its regulatory superpower over 450 million consumers, it's because they're terrified of what it means for US companies. Europe has immense power here. We could exclude Big Tech from our markets entirely if they don't play by our rules. Instead? EU leaders are voluntarily gutting laws on tech, but also climate, chemicals, doing Trump's work for him. Paradoxically, the EU simplification drive won't free Europe from Americ: it will make Europe even more dependent. To know more I recommend you to listen to the latest episode of EU Scream with James Kanter

Alberto Alemanno

37,466 views • 8 months ago

Reporter: Does that mean Americans should anticipate spending more on gasoline for the foreseeable future? Trump: For a little while. You know what they get for that? Iran without a nuclear weapon that's going to try and blow up one of our cities or blow up the entire Middle East. The stock market is at an all time high. Reporter: — Trump: Let me finish wise guy.

Reporter: Does that mean Americans should anticipate spending more on gasoline for the foreseeable future? Trump: For a little while. You know what they get for that? Iran without a nuclear weapon that's going to try and blow up one of our cities or blow up the entire Middle East. The stock market is at an all time high. Reporter: — Trump: Let me finish wise guy.

Acyn

30,515 views • 3 months ago

“It all starts from your heart, your mind, and the way you think. When I say don’t be cowards, be lions, what I mean precisely is that, to be a coward is to live without an opinion, allowing people to insult you and you apologize to them instead of them apologizing to you. They should be the ones to apologize. To be a lion is to accept to deal with and confront your challenges, those of your family or country, and you own them unapologetically.” Chairman Kagame | Interaction with Content Creators.

“It all starts from your heart, your mind, and the way you think. When I say don’t be cowards, be lions, what I mean precisely is that, to be a coward is to live without an opinion, allowing people to insult you and you apologize to them instead of them apologizing to you. They should be the ones to apologize. To be a lion is to accept to deal with and confront your challenges, those of your family or country, and you own them unapologetically.” Chairman Kagame | Interaction with Content Creators.

FPR-Inkotanyi

44,136 views • 2 years ago

NEW: Joe Lonsdale shocks CNBC on AI regulation debate: Andrew Ross Sorkin: Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Joe: The FDA has killed millions of people... Andrew: Killed?? Joe: Massive bureaucracy makes it cost 10 or 100X more than it should... there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do... China would love for us to have a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. Andrew Ross Sorkin: We're all trying to figure out what this could look like. Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Is that a good thing or a bad thing for somebody who's thinking the way you do? Joe: Listen, the FDA has killed millions of people. Let's be totally clear, right? Andrew: Killed?? Joe: It's literally led to the deaths of millions of people, Andrew... There's all these new therapies, especially now, by the way, with AI that we could be developing... Andrew: It's also hopefully saved some lives... Joe: I mean the trade off is probably 100 to 1. There's a very famous story from 60 years ago where they caught some stuff that was killing people in Europe and saved them here. They've used that as an excuse to make this massive bureaucracy that makes it cost 10 or 100 times more to do drugs than it should, which means there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do. I would be investing billions more to save lives, but I can't. So the equivalent is terrifying to me. The government is bad at these things. The bureaucrats are bad at these things. Now there's a there's another argument here, which is that you have things like Mythos and OpenAI's new technology that's really, really good at hacking into everything. And you probably don't want like, that new technology going to the bad guys right away. So there has to be some sort of trade off, some sort of framework. We have to be really careful not to make the mistakes the FDA has made. Andrew: So what would you do? What do you think that should look like? Joe: There probably should be some national agreement on regulation on new powerful models. It should be as small and as narrow as possible. It should not have the same bureaucracy. You should make sure the government from the start, has metrics on the speed at which it has to go and the transparency, because you're gonna have cronyism, you're gonna have the big guys capture it. You're going to slow it down. Pharma loves the FDA against biotech. It makes it too expensive for us to build our own pharma companies. We have to sell to them. This is what the big guys want. Google and Microsoft and OpenAI and the rest of them, they want to create rules to make it so they can... Andrew: They've all been calling for it. I mean, you remember Sam Altman, Dario, others early on said, "Regulate us; you need to regulate us. Please, regulate us." The question is was that a genuine call for action or do you think that was a "We think Washington's never going to do this. So we'll say it, and get some nice PR points." Joe: If you are the leader in the space and you have tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, you want there to be really complicated regulation with people you can hire who go in and out of your company, who work there because you know you're going to be able to control it and influence it. ...And by the way, China has pre-IND (Investigational New Drug process) and IND of 30 and 60 days about right now. We have 200 and 500 days. And so we've completely delayed anything we do. We've handed more than a third now of our biotech sector to China in the last six years because we're so slow. We definitely don't want to do that on the AI side. That would be a disaster. China would love for us to do a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. We cannot allow that to happen. Squawk Box

NEW: Joe Lonsdale shocks CNBC on AI regulation debate: Andrew Ross Sorkin: Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Joe: The FDA has killed millions of people... Andrew: Killed?? Joe: Massive bureaucracy makes it cost 10 or 100X more than it should... there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do... China would love for us to have a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. Andrew Ross Sorkin: We're all trying to figure out what this could look like. Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Is that a good thing or a bad thing for somebody who's thinking the way you do? Joe: Listen, the FDA has killed millions of people. Let's be totally clear, right? Andrew: Killed?? Joe: It's literally led to the deaths of millions of people, Andrew... There's all these new therapies, especially now, by the way, with AI that we could be developing... Andrew: It's also hopefully saved some lives... Joe: I mean the trade off is probably 100 to 1. There's a very famous story from 60 years ago where they caught some stuff that was killing people in Europe and saved them here. They've used that as an excuse to make this massive bureaucracy that makes it cost 10 or 100 times more to do drugs than it should, which means there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do. I would be investing billions more to save lives, but I can't. So the equivalent is terrifying to me. The government is bad at these things. The bureaucrats are bad at these things. Now there's a there's another argument here, which is that you have things like Mythos and OpenAI's new technology that's really, really good at hacking into everything. And you probably don't want like, that new technology going to the bad guys right away. So there has to be some sort of trade off, some sort of framework. We have to be really careful not to make the mistakes the FDA has made. Andrew: So what would you do? What do you think that should look like? Joe: There probably should be some national agreement on regulation on new powerful models. It should be as small and as narrow as possible. It should not have the same bureaucracy. You should make sure the government from the start, has metrics on the speed at which it has to go and the transparency, because you're gonna have cronyism, you're gonna have the big guys capture it. You're going to slow it down. Pharma loves the FDA against biotech. It makes it too expensive for us to build our own pharma companies. We have to sell to them. This is what the big guys want. Google and Microsoft and OpenAI and the rest of them, they want to create rules to make it so they can... Andrew: They've all been calling for it. I mean, you remember Sam Altman, Dario, others early on said, "Regulate us; you need to regulate us. Please, regulate us." The question is was that a genuine call for action or do you think that was a "We think Washington's never going to do this. So we'll say it, and get some nice PR points." Joe: If you are the leader in the space and you have tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, you want there to be really complicated regulation with people you can hire who go in and out of your company, who work there because you know you're going to be able to control it and influence it. ...And by the way, China has pre-IND (Investigational New Drug process) and IND of 30 and 60 days about right now. We have 200 and 500 days. And so we've completely delayed anything we do. We've handed more than a third now of our biotech sector to China in the last six years because we're so slow. We definitely don't want to do that on the AI side. That would be a disaster. China would love for us to do a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. We cannot allow that to happen. Squawk Box

American Optimist

192,392 views • 2 months ago

New Zealand First, or New Zealanders last?🇳🇿 BREAKING: NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft confirmed as casting the deciding vote on the Gene Technology Bill in the Health Select Committee. Making it 5-4 in FAVOUR. This is the very bill NZ First told the public they would block without sufficient safeguards - the one they said would never allow GMO or gene-edited organisms into the environment. Yet they voted for it, with NO safeguards in place. The real irony here is that Jenny is accepting a petition to stop Covid-19 mRNA injections - while voting for legislation that shifts health decision-making and regulation out of New Zealand’s hands and into overseas ones. Under the Gene Technology Bill, the government can issue what are called mandatory medical authorisations. In plain terms: if a gene-based medicine or technology is approved by two recognised overseas regulators, New Zealand’s regulator is required to mirror that approval. If this is “New Zealand First”, it’s hard to see where New Zealanders fit in… What do we make of this NZ? Video from John Ansell and New Zealand Outdoors & Freedom Party. #saynotogmo #newzealand #newzealandlast #1termgovt #nzpol

New Zealand First, or New Zealanders last?🇳🇿 BREAKING: NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft confirmed as casting the deciding vote on the Gene Technology Bill in the Health Select Committee. Making it 5-4 in FAVOUR. This is the very bill NZ First told the public they would block without sufficient safeguards - the one they said would never allow GMO or gene-edited organisms into the environment. Yet they voted for it, with NO safeguards in place. The real irony here is that Jenny is accepting a petition to stop Covid-19 mRNA injections - while voting for legislation that shifts health decision-making and regulation out of New Zealand’s hands and into overseas ones. Under the Gene Technology Bill, the government can issue what are called mandatory medical authorisations. In plain terms: if a gene-based medicine or technology is approved by two recognised overseas regulators, New Zealand’s regulator is required to mirror that approval. If this is “New Zealand First”, it’s hard to see where New Zealanders fit in… What do we make of this NZ? Video from John Ansell and New Zealand Outdoors & Freedom Party. #saynotogmo #newzealand #newzealandlast #1termgovt #nzpol

GE Honesty

32,539 views • 7 months ago

#WATCH | Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala | On the Karur stampede, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "... Its a very tragic and painful situation. Something is wrong in our country with crowd management. Every year, there seems to be an incident. We remember Bengaluru. It is very heartbreaking when we hear children being killed in these stampedes... For me, the argument is about what can we do as a systematic policy nationally to protect ordinary people. People go in a spirit to listen to a politician who happens to be a movie star, or to see cricketers, who are also stars for us, the basic thing should be that there should be certain rules, standards, and protocols in place... At the same time I earnestly appeal to the central government and all state governments to agree on a set of very strict procedures governing all large crowds in any circumstances so that we do not needlessly suffer the grief and anguish of loved ones being lost in these terrible stampedes..."

#WATCH | Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala | On the Karur stampede, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "... Its a very tragic and painful situation. Something is wrong in our country with crowd management. Every year, there seems to be an incident. We remember Bengaluru. It is very heartbreaking when we hear children being killed in these stampedes... For me, the argument is about what can we do as a systematic policy nationally to protect ordinary people. People go in a spirit to listen to a politician who happens to be a movie star, or to see cricketers, who are also stars for us, the basic thing should be that there should be certain rules, standards, and protocols in place... At the same time I earnestly appeal to the central government and all state governments to agree on a set of very strict procedures governing all large crowds in any circumstances so that we do not needlessly suffer the grief and anguish of loved ones being lost in these terrible stampedes..."

ANI

115,641 views • 9 months ago