My $0.02 is that Dario genuinely believes* this, Sam doesn't, but it's convenient for OpenAI to hitch its wagon to Anthropic's call for regulation because their financials are a mess.

• just because his belief is genuine doesn't mean it's reasonable. I find the whole thing kind of laughable actually.

Correct, this means anyone will be able to buy/sell shares on the open market.

It's also why the financials are actually open to the public. They have to publicly disclose all financials/risk factors/etc before they invite the public to buy shares The idea is that institutional/wealthy investors are savvy enough to figure that out on their own.

Literal homelab.

OK, I'm definitely not imagining things, because I still have the original tab open that shows the YouTube link. I don't know if these are being deleted, or a glitch, or what. Here's the link anyway:

https://youtu.be/EfMtDpyGidA

No idea what happened here! It was meant to be a link to a Youtube video:

https://youtu.be/EfMtDpyGidA

Not sure why you brought up lying, that's totally different (and still illegal, public or private).

The difference between raising public vs private money is whether or not you are legally required to actively disclose your financials/risks/business plans/etc. I can (legally) raise money from a wealthy family office with nothing but a phone call (basically how most angel investments work). I can't do the same if I'm trying to raise money from a random Joe off the street, that will land me in jail.

Public fundraising laws exist to protect the average Joe from losing his life savings to fly-by-night hucksters while trying to ensure companies can still raise capital.

If you're a wealthy/sophisticated investor, the expectation is that you're already capable of assessing investment risk on your own (including, if you think necessary, getting your own lawyers, direct access to a company's financial reports, due diligence, etc). Average Joe, on the other hand, is required to be given audited financials, a prospectus that's vetted by regulators, explicit statements of share rights, etc etc.

I'm pro-AI and anti-regulation but I don't think it's wise to completely dismiss the reality that these things will lower the bar for bad actors to get access to dangerous things. The Tokyo sarin gas attacks are pretty relevant:

Asahara and 24 other cult members traveled from Tokyo to Perth, Australia, bringing generators, tools, protective equipment, including gas masks and respirators, and chemicals to make sarin. ...the group chartered aircraft from Perth to Banjawarn Station, where they searched for uranium deposits to make nuclear weapons and may have tested the efficacy of the synthesized sarin on animals...The group left behind several drums of hazardous and toxic chemicals, and empty bottles of sake strewn about the property. Following news of the subway attacks, the new owners became suspicious and contacted the Australian Federal Police, who inspected the property and found evidence of past chemical weapons testing.[24] Despite the safety features and often state-of-the-art equipment and practices, the operation of the facility was very unsafe – one analyst later described the cult as having a "high degree of book learning, but virtually nothing in the way of technical skill."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack)

How much more damage would they have done with a small amount of help from a capable LLM?