Cal Newport

And of course, no, that's never justified.

Now, unfortunately, given the recent history of our current administration, we have to assume that corruption or arbitrariness or revenge probably played some sort of role in whatever they were doing.

We cannot have regulatory actions be implemented so capriciously.

I agree with Gary Marcus and Dean Ball about the need for a transparent and consistently applied regulatory regime if we are to create one of those.

All right.

The second potential justification is the national security concerns.

Is the government in general justified for blocking or restricting an AI model if they have concerns about its ability to cause harm?

Yes.

That is a good justification for the government to step in.

You do not, as an American company, have a right to ship any product you want without interference from the government.

If it can cause massive harm, especially harm to us caused by our enemies, this is where the government should say, hold on.

Again, you are not, as the AI companies like to make themselves seem, stewards of an inevitable technology.

You're building products.

If you build a product that's going to screw us, we don't want you to release it, just like you can't release medicine that's poison or cars that'll explode.

What about the third just possible explanation here that they are calling the AI companies bluff?

Is this ever a justified rationale for government intervention?

I'm going to say yes.

I'm going to say yes, because I think this is a public health crisis.

These companies have been trying to terrify the public for at least the last two years.

And I find this strategy of wanting everyone to be unsettled all the time, unconscionable, strange, and baffling.