David Sacks抨击闭源AI公司利用监管不确定性打击开源竞争

“The leading closed labs, already a duopoly in terms of AI model revenue, want the government to eli...

“The leading closed labs, already a duopoly in terms of AI model revenue, want the government to eliminate their open source competition.” Gotta say I agree with @DavidSacks . David Sacks @DavidSacks I’m not sure whether Dean Ball is confessing to a regulatory capture strategy or simply predicting this will happen (he now says the latter). Either way, the weaponization of regulatory uncertainty as a competitive tool should be completely unacceptable. He argues there’s no need to ban Chinese open-source models — just direct agencies to issue soft-law warnings that create enough FUD so regulated enterprises back off. “It needn’t be that well justified.” Wrong. Regulatory decisions should always be well justified and grounded in facts, logic, and evidence, not the deliberate exploitation of fear and uncertainty. Implementing a surreptitious policy through manufactured doubt — rather than strong and explicit justification — corrodes the rule of law and invites future abuse against anyone. We are at a critical inflection point in AI policy. The leading closed labs, already a duopoly in terms of AI model revenue, want the government to eliminate their open source competition. They have laid their cards on the table. It is time for the rest of Silicon Valley — the vast majority that still values open competition — to do the same. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet 💬 7 🔄 2 ❤️ 26 👀 3787 📊 7 ⚡