Debating AI Nationalization, Intellectual Property, and Liability

It's like every mark. They don't realize they're the mark.

Because now, you first you migrate all the IP to your business, and then because you need uncapped, you need capped liability, both vis-à-vis the business and vis-à-vis the dangers, you've got to migrate the business to the government. It has to be nationalized.

So what's actually happening is this is reported as regulation, non-regulation movement.

Yeah. That's actually not what this movement is.

It's like the view that I believe they have is these businesses have to be nationalized because if you don't nationalize them, every single one of my clients is gonna sue.

Now, you think that's what they want? I... Well, obviously. Like, if you have a business that presupposes unlimited risk, both vis-à-vis liability risk, vis-à-vis the clients- Mm ... 'cause I don't think any of our clients realize their IP was migrating,

vis-à-vis the world because you're saying, "What is the liability risk for destroying 10% of the company?" 10, 10% of the world.

High. It discounted into the present. Okay, but there's only one institution, and by the way, that's not actually what's happening. They want three institutions.

It's gonna be like Europe, Canada, and America.

We migrate all the IP of America from our businesses to this institution, then the institution is going to get full liability protection because it's nationalized.

Do you think OpenAI wants this? Uh, well, no, no.

Ant 金 融 wants this? There's very... No, I think, I think these are very different things, but I think that is the core philosophy of the EA movement imposed upon a business-