I don't see why we should put ourselves in a position where we need that kind of trust. Another way to put it is, why burden the government with an unsustainable uncompetitive market? For what?
OpenAI is a for-profit private corporation with a commercial service to offer that has no bearing on the most important concerns the government is elected each year to tackle.
I'm not sure I follow this exactly, isn't regulation supposed to aid in preventing an `unsustainable uncompetitive market` ?
The market has shown over and over that left to it's own devices, things will not balance out.
Because the societal costs of certain industries' unregulated activities do more harm than the economic cost of doing that regulation.
Despite what the Libertarian Party's pamphlet might say, regulation is invariably reactive rather than proactive; the saying is "safety-codes are written in blood", after-all.
Note that I'm not advocating we "regulate AI" now; instead I believe we're still in the "wait-and-see" phase (whereas we're definitely past that for social-media services like Facebook, but that's another story). There are hypothetical, but plausible, risks; but in the event they become real then we (society) need to be prepared to respond appropriately.
I'm not an expert in this area; I don't need to be: I trust people who do know better than me to come up with workable proposals. How about that?
You mentioned the concept of 'high trust societies'. Assuming you are referring to one or the other, how long ago did Western European, or East Asian countries transition from authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes to being regarded as high trust societies?
In my opinion, it seems that many of these high trust societies were the exact opposite within living memory. Which would make me even more skeptical and cautious, not more trusting.
The US might get flak for our system, but it has been around and survived world wars, civil wars, etc. Our inherent distrust of "big government" has a track record of preserving a functional democracy longer than any other system. And the outcome has been a highly competitive and successful economy that hasn't been replicated elsewhere.
And arguably, wouldn’t it have been better if no civil-war happened in the first place?
The US economy of today is nothing like the US economy of the 50's and 60's where working class people could own homes, had stable jobs and could afford healthcare. To treat it like the same consistent "system" throughout the past is missing a lot of nuance.
The way economic inequality is trending today, this will all end very badly IMHO.
Edit: By total coincidence, this relevant TED talk is now on the second page of HN -
