Counter point, there are already limited consumer protection laws with regards to algorithmic decision making in the United States. There are very few speed bumps to rolling out ChatGPT like systems for decision making - even if it makes bad decisions. It's easy to imagine that LLMs could be used to make decisions which are manifestly illegal simply by virtue of being black boxes.

That being said, regulating the producer of the LLM technology seems like the wrong approach compared to regulating the outcome. OpenAI asking to block new entrants is the surest sign I've seen that they don't believe their moat is all that deep.

In practical terms, Google got its initial moat because it would cost X dollars and take Y time to catch up to them. There were only 2-3 firms who could plausibly pursue this in the 2000s. The claim that AI firms will either become commoditized or that they will have to spend X billion per year in ads to maintain their edge is not unfounded.

> Autonomous systems should be regulated.

Why?

Because anything with potentially exponential growth is dangerous.

I mean, we're already seeing why. I've seen people literally state that "AI cannot be biased", after training said AI on datasets derived from biased humans. We already see computer algorithms dictating people's lives, and people having no recourse to those decisions, and corporations/institutions abdicating responsibility towards their own decisions because "computer says no".