wuschel

Hard disagree on the oversimplification. Drugs with R&D, certification and production belong to the most complex and hard product classes.. they are nothing like software.

Picking the right drug is a lottery game in itself that involves portfolio strategy, biologic modeling of your product efficacy and safety, optimization of yields, and "field testing". Then you still have to build the right distribution channels to the patient and find someone to pay for your product. Even reproducing drugs is not a trivial thing, as you need to re-certify production plants. In the case of biologics it is even more complicated.

Unless we burn enormous amounts of cash or set up specific incentives, there is not way we can bring primary socially motivated drugs to the market with the current risk structure of the industry.

Pharma is one of the most complex playing fields there is. The sad thing is that we might strongly overstimate the ability to significantly improve the development of new drugs through AI in the next 10 years.

Curious - how, if I may ask?

There are provisions in the German federal and state constitution and law that are there to actively combat anti-constitutinal activity. These are lessons from the Weimar Republic. 1% or 50%, does not matter. Either you play by the rules of the game, or you risk being exposed to the sanctions that be.

Hmm. I will bite.

We have to see this through the lens of modern German history, and the corpus of rules (and lessons from history) that allowed the German Federal Republic to become an independent state again. I think this is not about saying things, but about saying things that foreshadow an attack on the constitution, and then perhaps very likely damaging the institutions of a country in the future.

A democratic state is a suboptimal construct. Once the politcal damaged, it is not easily repaired (See: Some countries East of Germany).

Not sure why you get the downvotes. There is indeed a strong barrier towards making a party illegal in Germany.

It is hard to understand how countries work. Whether France, US, Germany or China, these are very different animals. It is also tricky to be well informed regarding the struggle for power in politics, since this is not material that is properly explained in every day press publications.

This is a genuine question to probe the solution space to the politcal problems in Germany: What do you think would be the right thing to do THIS time?

Maintaining a balance of power between legislatory, judicatory, and executive organs, a system of free speech, securing fundamental constitutional citizen rights, and the enablement and guarantee of peaceful power transition is core to democracy. In addition to that, there is an federal power distribution axis in Germany.

Looking at historical precedents that tried to undermine this kind of democratic political system (e.g. PIS in Poland, NSDAP in Germany), the political systems were damaged (and are still not repaired) or outright hollowed out.

I think it is important that a dialogue exists in society, Even the radical parties have a chance to exist and represent the political opinion and direction of their voters. However, I think it is even more important than these parties stick to maintaining the very political system that they allows them to exist.

The AFD might not be such a party. In time, democratic state organs might be hollowed out, and an apartheid system might be installed in Germany.

It is worth fighting to maintain a suboptimal free political system than to succumb to madness. At least - in part - we can keep the idiots in check.

Regulatory capture - I tried to bring this up in another comment of mine, but not much resonance.

I wondered if many a press article seen in media re security breaches and LLMs based hacks are not in part at least campaigns to legitimize regulation.

How would regulatory capture of LLM realistically look like? Do you have any ideas here?

"Sorry, this content is not available in your region."

Why is that the case? Logged in from DE atm.

Hey, thanks for the interesting points.

To 1. I agree that they disclosure is better than non-disclosure. Then again, aren't they using their models in a mode seems to statistically allow for 'rogue incidents'? These are not bugs, after all, but normal statistical behaviour of their product.

To 2. Well, that really depends on the regulations. In fields highly complex technoligies with a large contact surface to risk like medical devices, airliners, rockets, regulations are indeed a hindering factor for smaller players to get hold of the full vertical development potential of their product. AI could become a candidate like that too - imagine some multi phased "AI internet trial" for this kind of technology, no more risky open weight model being allowed to access the internet.

To 3. You are referring to the high development velocity and impact, right?

AI mischief all over the news - I wonder if this is part of a media campaign to generate the perception of a need for AI regulation to increase the probability that the big AI model companies are on the road to generate the right returns on investment. Regulations certainly might hamper free model deployment or smaller players.

What are your thoughts about it?