AmericaDesu

NEW: @JTLonsdale shocks CNBC on AI regulation debate: @andrewrsorkin: Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Joe: The FDA has killed millions of people... Andrew: Killed?? Joe: Massive bureaucracy makes it cost 10 or 100X more than it should... there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do... China would love for us to have a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. Andrew Ross Sorkin: We're all trying to figure out what this could look like. Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Is that a good thing or a bad thing for somebody who's thinking the way you do? Joe: Listen, the FDA has killed millions of people. Let's be totally clear, right? Andrew: Killed?? Joe: It's literally led to the deaths of millions of people, Andrew... There's all these new therapies, especially now, by the way, with AI that we could be developing... Andrew: It's also hopefully saved some lives... Joe: I mean the trade off is probably 100 to 1. There's a very famous story from 60 years ago where they caught some stuff that was killing people in Europe and saved them here. They've used that as an excuse to make this massive bureaucracy that makes it cost 10 or 100 times more to do drugs than it should, which means there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do. I would be investing billions more to save lives, but I can't. So the equivalent is terrifying to me. The government is bad at these things. The bureaucrats are bad at these things. Now there's a there's another argument here, which is that you have things like Mythos and OpenAI's new technology that's really, really good at hacking into everything. And you probably don't want like, that new technology going to the bad guys right away. So there has to be some sort of trade off, some sort of framework. We have to be really careful not to make the mistakes the FDA has made. Andrew: So what would you do? What do you think that should look like? Joe: There probably should be some national agreement on regulation on new powerful models. It should be as small and as narrow as possible. It should not have the same bureaucracy. You should make sure the government from the start, has metrics on the speed at which it has to go and the transparency, because you're gonna have cronyism, you're gonna have the big guys capture it. You're going to slow it down. Pharma loves the FDA against biotech. It makes it too expensive for us to build our own pharma companies. We have to sell to them. This is what the big guys want. Google and Microsoft and OpenAI and the rest of them, they want to create rules to make it so they can... Andrew: They've all been calling for it. I mean, you remember Sam Altman, Dario, others early on said, "Regulate us; you need to regulate us. Please, regulate us." The question is was that a genuine call for action or do you think that was a "We think Washington's never going to do this. So we'll say it, and get some nice PR points." Joe: If you are the leader in the space and you have tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, you want there to be really complicated regulation with people you can hire who go in and out of your company, who work there because you know you're going to be able to control it and influence it. ...And by the way, China has pre-IND (Investigational New Drug process) and IND of 30 and 60 days about right now. We have 200 and 500 days. And so we've completely delayed anything we do. We've handed more than a third now of our biotech sector to China in the last six years because we're so slow. We definitely don't want to do that on the AI side. That would be a disaster. China would love for us to do a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. We cannot allow that to happen. @SquawkCNBC