General
Share and discuss tech, products, business, startups, or product recommendations
Start new thread

Do you think AI should be regulated by governments, or should the market regulate it instead?

by
•

When I was reading today, I came across Jensen Huang’s (NVIDIA CEO) view that AI safety should be handled by companies through engineering and market pressure, rather than through new regulation.

In my opinion, the power of consumers and the public is sometimes simply not strong enough to counterbalance large technology companies. That’s why I believe governments sometimes need to step in and establish rules and regulations.

Do you think AI should be regulated by governments or by the market?

I personally think that there should be a hybrid form of regulation. I completely dislike the idea of ​​regulating the development and use of AI and how the EU is approaching it, but at the same time I appreciate the initiative that, for example, protects copyright and the ethical use of AI.

60 views

Add a comment

Replies

Best

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the biggest risks often come from the market and end-developers rather than the AI providers themselves. Anyone can build a project today, and many don't care about safety rules.

For example, most of the chaotic AI automation we see today came from third-party developers using APIs, not from the AI providers themselves. When something goes wrong, people blame the big company. But if you use an API, it should be your mission to make your app safe, not just the provider's job.

 I agree about third-party risks, so my position: government should regulate uses and outcomes, not research or model internals, because AI companies are the only ones who can do the actual safety engineering.

That’s true but once something is in the market, people will still misuse it. It’s like selling laundry pods and hoping nobody eats them. You can regulate the product, but the user is always the final risk manager.

People fear AI companies.
But the real mess always comes from the outside. hobby devs, rushed startups, automation cowboys.
A coordinated org causes less chaos than the open market ever will.

 Good point, and I think both things can be true at once. Big AI companies build the base model and set some ground rules. But once you hand out an API, thousands of developers build on top of it, and most of the actual risk shows up in what they build, not in the base model itself.

So maybe it's less "who's more at fault" and more "who's responsible for what."

I don’t think government is good at governing AI advancement unless if there’s a true expertise sitting at their regulatory bodies. The recent US export ban on Anthropic Fable is such a classic example stupid af. And EU on the other hand living on another planet and. going to come out of bunch of nonsense. Leave the AI companies alone as nobody is above the law.

None! Governments are very inefficient, big companies have other incentives.

I believe in entrepreneurship and the power of the free market. Every problem is an opportunity for a new product!

It is in our hands, entrepreneurs, specially the small ones like the PH community, to come up with ideas for new products and projects that could improve AI safety.

Probably, there will be no magic bullet that solves everything, but a lot of small ideas that will address different aspects.

Dangers will always exist; life is difficult! But private initiative is the best tool to make significant contributions to a better world.

Not governments, not big established companies—you, me, all of us.

Every weapon of mass destruction must be regulated by the government.

What do you think is the biggest challenge with regulating AI without slowing innovation?

I’m in favor of regulation when it comes to the legal side (fo example privacy, misuse, accountability, etc). But beyond that, I think we should leave enough freedom for AI to develop and innovate without overregulating it.

Building agent products day to day, my honest take is that regulating "AI" as one thing doesn't really work, because a chatbot and an autonomous agent that can take actions on your behalf carry completely different risk profiles. I'd rather see rules scoped to what the system is allowed to actually do (can it move money, send emails, touch production systems) than rules scoped to the model itself. That also happens to be the layer where a small team can actually build good defaults - permission scopes, human approval steps, audit logs - versus waiting on either a big lab's safety team or a slow-moving regulator to catch up.

Usually I would be inclined to say free market but AI is different , it is not just another product it has power to hack companies , if combined with robotics it can disrupt supply chain etc . This is not something to be taken lightly , govt is the only thing that can regulate this but not in the usual way they need to hire experts or create another department which is dedicated to this !

I lean hybrid too, the real question is whether users can actually see the harm. Market pressure works when bad outcomes are visible. It breaks down for things like training data or safety testing, where the average user just can't see that layer that's an information gap, not market weakness, and it's exactly what disclosure/audit-style regulation is good at filling.

Where I'd push back on heavy regulation is the R&D process itself that tends to just lock in whoever's already big enough to absorb the compliance cost.