I love the retelling of "I don't really care, Margaret." here.
But politics aside, this also points to something I've said numerous times here before: In order to write the rulebook you need to be a creator.
Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules. As far as "AI" is concerned, the creators are squarely the United States and presumably China. The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around.
If you want to be the rulemaker, be a creator; not a litigator.
> The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around
Exactly what I'd expect someone from a country where the economy is favoured over the society to say - particularly in the context of consumer protection.
You want access to a trade union of consumers? You play by the rules of that Union.
American exceptionalism doesn't negate that. A large technical moat does. But DeepSeek has jumped in and revealed how shallow that moat really is for AI at this neonatal stage.
Except EU is hell bent on going the way of Peron's Argentina or Mugabe's Zimbabwe. The EU relative share of world economy has been going down with no signs of the trends reversal. And instead of innovating our ways of stagnation we have - permanently attached bottle caps and cookie confirmation windows.
Nope mate. Looking at my purchasing power compared to the USA guys I knew now and in 2017. Not in my favor. EU economy is grossly mismanaged. Our standards of living have been flat for the last 18 years since the financial crisis.
In 2008 EU had more people, more money and bigger economy than US, with proper policies we could be in a place where we could bitch slap both Trump and Putin. And not left to wonder whose dick we have to suck deeper to get some gas.
Peter Zeihan would say, that’s the problem Europe has, in addition to demographic collapse. They’re not energy indepedent and hitched their star to Russia (especially Germany), on the belief that economic interdependence would keep things somewhat peaceful. How wrong they were
I'm Japanese-American, so I'm not exactly happy about Japan's state of irrelevance (yet again). Their one saving grace as a special(er) ally and friend is they can still enjoy some of the nectar with us if they get in lockstep like the UK does (family blood!) when push comes to shove.
> You don't make rules by writing several hundred pages of legalese as a litigator, you make rules by creating products and defining the market.
That is completely wrong, at least if rules = the law. You might create fancy products all you like, if they do not adhere to the law in any given market, they cannot be sold there.
> Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules
Create things? Or destroy them? Seems in reality, the most powerful nations are the ones who have acquired the greatest potential to destroy things. Creation is worthless if the dude next door is prepared to burn your house down because you look different to him.
But politics aside, this also points to something I've said numerous times here before: In order to write the rulebook you need to be a creator.
Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules. As far as "AI" is concerned, the creators are squarely the United States and presumably China. The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around.
If you want to be the rulemaker, be a creator; not a litigator.