All stories
TheMarker
TheMarkerWhen AI Companies Push for Oversight, They Know Who Won't Be Able to Meet the Requirements
TheMarkerAn op-ed by Chen Bareket on the paradox of AI giants calling for tougher regulation — and the risk that costly safety rules become a barrier shielding them from competition.
Quotes by Chen Bareket
Selected excerpts from the interview.
It must be said honestly, without a trace of cynicism: the threat is not fabricated. The dangers posed by autonomous systems capable of bypassing security barriers or carrying out manipulation are real, and safety must be a paramount interest. But in political economy, when a giant corporation asks the state to intervene in the market in which it operates, we must also look for the bottom line.
When AI companies push for oversight bodies, government licensing mechanisms, safety testing that costs a fortune, and heavy legal liability for system outputs, they know very well who will be able to meet the requirements. Corporations such as Microsoft or Google have vast resources, armies of lawyers, and compliance departments that can handle almost any regulation. Research institutes, startups, and open-source developers have far less.
Before approving the new safety laws, lawmakers should ask themselves one critical question: are they truly protecting the public from the risks of the technology, or are they protecting corporations from competition?
Safety and competition are not opposing goals. Responsible regulation should address real risk, require independent scrutiny and transparency, and avoid rules that only the largest companies can afford to meet.