It's troubling that you are saying things about the bill which are false, and then speculating on the motives of someone just pointing out that what you are saying is false.

why not tell us?

Or point out what is actually false?

You rebutted the points that the flop limit will not actually limit anyone by saying that gpt4 is out of reach of startups.

Is OpenAI a startup? Is Anthropic? Is Grok? Is Perplexity? Is SSI?

You ignored the counter points that advanced technology exponentially raises flop limits and changes costs.

You said that the flop limit can be raised over time. So startups shouldn’t worry.

You ignored the counter point that flop limits in export controls are explicitly designed to limit competition from other nations.

Flop limits not being a real limit is a ridiculous argument. The intent of a flop limit is to limit, no matter how you sugar coat it.

You have confused me with someone else.

What's false is the idea that the limit is going to be a burden on small companies, because you can ignore the flop limit if you're spending less than a hundred million dollars. (Big companies, in contrast, can use a percent of their budget for compliance.)

Being able to ignore the flop limit makes basically everything else you've said irrelevant. But just to quickly go through: I don't want to argue about what a 'startup' is but they're not 'small guys'. Advanced tech can be compensated for, but also it doesn't change the fact that staying under $100 million keeps you excluded. Export controls have nothing to do with this discussion, and they involve a completely different kind of 'flop limit'.

I’m a person who’s interested in arguments based on reality. Frankly I don’t have a solid opinion on the bill in any particular direction.