Daniel and I continue the comment thread here
https://open.substack.com/pub/maximumprogress/p/ai-regulation-is-unsafe?r=awlwu&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=54561569
Maxwell Tabarrok
Karma: 620
Two Vernor Vinge Book Reviews
AI Regulation is Unsafe
A High Decoupling Failure
The 2nd Demographic Transition
Metascience of the Vesuvius Challenge
American Acceleration vs Development
Claude vs GPT
Don’t Endorse the Idea of Market Failure
We Need Major, But Not Radical, FDA Reform
When Should Copyright Get Shorter?
Practicing my Handwriting in 1439
Surgery Works Well Without The FDA
Against the Burden of Knowledge
Land Reclamation is in the 9th Circle of Stagnation Hell
AI Girlfriends Won’t Matter Much
It’s not a Motte and Bailey because I don’t switch between positions. My definition of the hardline position is to “restrict the FDA’s mandatory authority to labeling and make their efficacy testing completely non-binding.”
I could have made an argument for removing FDA safety testing as well but I didn’t. I am arguing only for the Motte against Scott’s plan to expand supplements and experimental drugs.
Firms are actually better than governments at internalizing costs across time. Asset values incorporate the potential future flows. For example, consider a retiring farmer. You might think that they have an incentive to run the soil dry in their last season since they won’t be using it in the future, but this would hurt the sale value of the farm. An elected representative who’s term limit is coming up wouldn’t have the same incentives.
Of course, firms incentives are very misaligned in important ways. The question is: Can we rely on government to improve these incentives.