>They're always discussing harsher liability regimes. The regulatory interventions are always positioned to the public as increasing accountability.

These conspiracy theories are getting ever more elaborate. The liability regime thing was not from some big speech. It was from a Senate subcommittee hearing which did not attract all that much attention:

https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-ai-preference-cascade-reac...

>Well, I'm not concerned with imaginary sci-fi stuff here, just actual AI developments.

The "actual AI developments" are that AI has been advancing faster than most everyone predicted, so expect that to continue: https://benjamintodd.substack.com/p/almost-every-ai-forecast...

>It's got me feeling like I'm living in Bizarro World, but at the moment, the sanest players in this market, and the ones whose actual behaviors and products are most consistent with a decentralized, individualist approach that aligns with real-world incentive structures most beneficially, are the Chinese AI labs.

Regarding open-weight models, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49606803

>If you acknowledged the threat of politicization and centralization, I don't know how you can argue for a regulatory takeover of the market by the very institution you think is becoming a "police state".

I don't think the US will become a police state. I think the takeover is kind of inevitable and I prefer it to happen sooner, on good terms, when the technology is weaker, rather than later, on ad-hoc terms, when the technology is stronger.