As independent as any other government oversight/regulation in the US, it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated.

> it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated.

Which is also the probable fate of an AGI super intelligence being regulated by humans.

You misunderstand AGI. AGI won't be controllable, it'd be like ants building a fence around a human thinking it'll keep him in.

If we actually create an AGI, it will view us much like we view other animals/insects/plants.

People often get wrapped up around an AGI's incentive structure and what intentions it will have, but IMO we have just as much chance of controlling it as wild rabbits have controlling humans.

It will be a massive leap in intelligence, likely with concepts and ways of understanding reality that either never considered or aren't capable of. Again, that's *if* we make an AGI not these LLM machine learning algorithms being paraded around as AI.

Not an economist, but that does not sound bad in general. Best case you have several companies that: (a) have the knowledge to make sensible rulings and (b) have an interest that non of their direct competitors gain any unfair advantages.

The problem case is when the companies all have a backroom meeting and go "Hey, lets ask for regulation X that hurts us some... but hurts everyone else way more"

Economists actually shouldn't even be included in regulatory considerations in my opinion. If they are then regulators must be balancing the regulation that on its own seems necessary with the economic impact of proper regulation.

It hasn't worked for the airline industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or big tech to name a few. I don't think its wise for us to keep trying the same strategy.