Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture

Re:Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture by vanderZwan on Tuesday September 15, 2026 @05:37AM (#49709949)

I think they're saying America ended up positioning itself as the loser because they framed things as a zero-sum game. Which of course is a generalization, neither America nor China is a monolith, but I can certainly see some presidencies of the last decades leaning more into this attitude than others.

“If you assume everyone only has hammers, you'll end up getting screwed”, or something like that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture by rglover on Tuesday September 15, 2026 @11:18AM (#49713866)

Yes, thank you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture by altcognito on Tuesday September 15, 2026 @09:45PM (#49721190)

> I think they're saying America ended up positioning itself as the loser because they framed things as a zero-sum game.

I didn't bother responding earlier, and I'm not sure why I'm responding now because I don't think "because they framed things as a zero-sum game." explains anything, and it sounds like something that sounded like a retort but offered without any evidence means nothing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big AI sets out its terms for regulatory capture by vanderZwan on Wednesday September 16, 2026 @04:03AM (#49723367)

Just like how not everything is a zero-sum game, not everything is a debate where one side tries to "win" where every exchange is an aggressive retort trying to disprove the other's point. I was trying to clarify what I suspected the intent was.

If even the suggestion of considering different points of view feels like an attempt to disprove your own position, then that mainly says something about how you are approaching this exchange.

[ Parent | on HN ]