It may be high time to discuss what AI policy has actually done so far. From what I can tell, not much other than letting social scientists get in on the deep learning gravy train.
Meanwhile, misuses of ML are proliferating without limits, and 'AI policy' is apparently mostly used as a fig-leaf to collect good-will, marketing, and buy a seat at the table for future regulations. As usual, regulations will protect incumbents, so my as-usual cynical read is that OpenAI's policy interests are about protecting its own future interests. From that perspective, the entire GPT-2 stunt was highly effective.
Now depending on your outlook, that may be an argument that we need more people in policy, or fewer. Or different ones.
Meanwhile, misuses of ML are proliferating without limits, and 'AI policy' is apparently mostly used as a fig-leaf to collect good-will, marketing, and buy a seat at the table for future regulations. As usual, regulations will protect incumbents, so my as-usual cynical read is that OpenAI's policy interests are about protecting its own future interests. From that perspective, the entire GPT-2 stunt was highly effective.
Now depending on your outlook, that may be an argument that we need more people in policy, or fewer. Or different ones.