Sounds right, I’ll remove “but China” and reframe away from responding to an adversarial objection. (For posterity: the title was “But China”: Some cruxes for some domestic AI regulation.) Thanks.
(I do think “but China” is better than e.g. “but FOOM” because it carves reality close to the joints to divide some US AI policy questions into effect if US keeps its lead and effect on US lead, and “but China” is the latter set of considerations. But that doesn’t make the title good.)
Sounds right, I’ll remove “but China” and reframe away from responding to an adversarial objection. (For posterity: the title was “But China”: Some cruxes for some domestic AI regulation.) Thanks.
(I do think “but China” is better than e.g. “but FOOM” because it carves reality close to the joints to divide some US AI policy questions into effect if US keeps its lead and effect on US lead, and “but China” is the latter set of considerations. But that doesn’t make the title good.)