> if the company can just hire new engineers

You understand this costs money, right?

Yes, it doesn't matter if you're the only one that does it, but it does matter if you're not the only one that does. Frankly, many people won't even apply to jobs they find unethical. So yes, they can "hire somebody else" but it becomes expensive for them. Don't act like this (or most things) is a binary outcome. Don't let perfection get in the way of doing better.

  > that doesn’t mean it has to stay that way

And how the fuck do you expect things to change if you will not make change yourself? You just expect everyone to do it for you? Hand you a better life on a golden platter? I'm sorry to tell you, it ain't free. You need to put in work. Just like with everything else in life. And you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.

Remember, I'm not arguing against regulation. So it is useless to talk about how regulation can solve problems. We agree on that, there's no discussion there. It seems the only aspect we disagree on that part is if regulation works 100% of the time or not. Considering the existence of lawsuits, I know we both know that's not true. I know we both know time exists as well and the laws don't account for everything, requiring them to be reactionary. Remember, laws can only be made after harm has been done. You need to show a victim. SO how do we provide another layer of protection? It comes down to you.

You will not be able to convince me we don't need both unless: 1) you can show regulation works 100% of the time or 2) you can provide another safety net (note you are likely to be able to get me to agree to another safety net but it's probably going to be difficult to convince me that this should be a replacement and not an addition. All our eggs in one basket, right?). Stop doing gymnastics, and get some balls.

I think our disagreement stems from this belief:

> Remember, laws can only be made after harm has been done.

This simply isn’t true. Plenty of regulation is done proactively. You just don’t hear about it as often because, harm prevented is not as good of a story as harm stopped.

For example we have no stories of exporting encryption algorithms to different countries causing harm, yet it is heavily regulated under the belief it will cause harm to national security. Similarly there is no stories of swearing on the radio causing harm, yet foul language is regulated by the FCC. A more meaningful examples are in the regulatory framework in the field of medicine, and if you want scale, the intellectual property of fashion design.

But even so, it can be argued that LLMs are already causing harm, it is mass producing and distributing bad information and stolen art. Consumers are harmed by the bad information, and artists are harmed by their art being stolen. A regulation—even if only reactionary—is still apt at this point.

The series of law-suits you mention only proves my point. We expect companies that break the law to be punished for their action, although I would argue that the regulator is generally far too lazy in pursuing legal actions against companies that break the law.

  > Plenty of regulation is done proactively. 

I'll concede. You're right. But this also is not the norm, despite my best wishes that it was.

  > I think our disagreement stems from this belief:

But I still think there's a critical element you are ignoring and I'm trying to stress over and over and over. YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THIS FOR A CONVERSATION TO BE HAD

  >> if regulation works 100% of the time or not
  >>>> If regulation works perfectly, you'll never have to do anything, right? But if it doesn't, then you provide a line of defense. So I don't see your argument. You can't expect anything to work 100%, so what then?

This concept is littered all throughout every single one of my comments and you have blatantly ignored it. I'm sorry, if you cannot even acknowledge the very foundation of my concern, I don't know how you can expect me to believe you are acting in good faith. This is at the root of my agitation.

  > The series of law-suits you mention only proves my point. We expect companies that break the law to be punished for their action

No it doesn't, because you are ignoring my point. I am not arguing against regulation. I am not arguing that regulation doesn't provide incentives.

My claim of lawsuits existing was to evidence the claim

  Regulations are not enough to stop the behavior before it occurs.

Again, this is the point you are ignoring and why no conversation is actually taking place.

  > although I would argue that the regulator is generally far too lazy in pursuing legal actions against companies that break the law.

Great! So you agree that regulation isn't enough and that regulation fails. You've tried very hard to avoid taking the next step. "WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN REGULATION FAILS?" Seriously, are you even reading my comments? At this point I can't figure out if I'm talking to a wall or an LLM. But either way, no conversation will continue unless you are unwilling to address this. You need to stop and ask yourself "what is godelski trying to communicate" and "why is godelski constantly insisting I am misunderstanding their argument?" So far your interpretations have no resolved the issue, maybe try something different.

> WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN REGULATION FAILS?

I expect better regulations and/or enforcement.

I am speaking around it because it seems obvious. If we have good regulation and enforcement of these regulations there is no need for self-regulation. While we don‘t have good regulation, or a regulator unwilling to enforce existing regulation, the go-to action is not to amass self-regulation (because it will not work) but to demand better regulation, and to demand the regulator does their job. That is at least how you would expect things to work in a democracy.