Cory Doctorow had an excellent thread yesterday that touches on this:
> You could be forgiven for assuming that this is just about reining in Wall Street greed, but that it isn't an especially political maneuver. That's not true: antitrust is the most consequentially political regulation (with the possible exception of regulations on elections). Every fascist power defeated in WWII relied on the backing of their national monopolists to take, hold and wield power. That's why the Marshall Plan technocrats who rewrote the laws of Europe, South Korea and Japan made sure to copy over US antitrust law onto those statute-books.
The well moneyed interests are getting everything they want, for the faintest little bribe. For showing the obsequiousness, for showing fealty to the regime.
The monopolization of power, allowing markets to en taken over by worse and worse foes of democracy, needs to be stopped. Needs to have some limit. The post talks about how:
> Under the Correcting Lapsed Enforcement in Antitrust Norms for Mergers (CLEAN Mergers) Act, any company that was acquired in a deal worth $10b or more will have to break up with its merger partner if it turns out that these mergers were "politically influenced."
https://bsky.app/profile/doctorow.pluralistic.net/post/3mkuk...
Anthropic ran a weeks-long roadshow on how powerful Mythos is. They pointed to the danger, their controls, the capabilities, and practically begged the world to be scared of it.
Simultaneously, the current US regime realized there was a way to demand fealty from the AI labs. If they're so dangerous, don't we need to see them first? That will cost you, obviously. Standard extortion from the government, at this moment in time.
The labs get their marketing; the white house gets its pseudo-bribe. I hope nobody involved is confused about how we ended up here.
Are you claiming there will be a fee?
Universities: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/29/nx-s1-5559293/trump-settlemen...
Companies: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/extortionary-intel-stake-s...
Law firms: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-law-firms--deals-wi...
Media: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/02/business/media/paramount-...
Why would AI companies be any different?
> Are you claiming there will be a fee?
I'd be more concerned with "your model can't be too woke" regulatory scenarios.
Honestly that's exactly where my mind went. We already see the current administration trying to censor free speech (e.g. Jimmy Kimmel, blocking/restricting press access to the White House unless you are pro-Trump).
I'm afraid of the potential to move in the direction of what we see in China where queries to LLMs referencing things like Tianenmen Square are censored (at best).
We are already there.
"Canva admits its AI tool removed 'Palestine' from designs: https://gizmodo.com/canva-admits-its-ai-tool-removed-palesti...
You'd be calling the First Amendment woke if we proposed it now.
I agree with the rest, sure.
Health codes and safety rules are woke, yes. I would have thought that as given. Debates over where you draw the line are absolutely a matter of wokeness.
The way freedom of expression is regulated today is generally woke. The WPFI is insanely woke.
They, at times, "[limit] a business's ability to exist because they can't afford to accommodate a small percentage of the population".
> Health codes and safety rules are woke, yes.
I take it you never read the parable of the boy who cried wolf.
i don't begin to understand either of these points
fwiw i'm woke, happy to be woke, encourage wokeness
Well, that's a first for me.
Alternate theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48023653
For sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. Those rules are still structured as laws, with boundaries and legal recourse. The precedent being set, that the President gets “voluntary” deference from private companies, is un-American and will be abused by the left.
or i just don't understand what you're saying
"Bothsidesism" posits that the two sides are broadly similar. The last few years have debunked that concept pretty conclusively.
As it was with "campus protests violate free speech!" from the folks who immediately turned around and banned voluntary diversity programs at universities.
As it was with "Twitter bans violate free speech" from the folks who bought it and banned @elonjet and the word cisgender.
With what competent staff?
Q: Does the government have the expertise, integrity, and credibility to regulate AI models? A: Color me sceptical.
bonsai_spool•1h ago