Steven Sinofsky: AI Doesn't Need New Rules Yet

The whole topic of regulation for me just seems completely backwards because it's starting before we even know what we're regulating. There's no reason why the AI companies should be against open source other than we just don't want our competition to exist, and we don't wanna bother to compete. We'd rather just compete with each other and not worry about that crazy open source competitor. True. There's no one knows the future. What those assumptions mean are we should regulate this based on our own personal predictions of the future. But the history of being right about those predictions is pretty limited. And so we should be really careful about that because those are all self serving. How should governments regulate AI when the technology is still evolving? Theo Jaffe and Sofia Puccini are joined by Steven Sounofsky to discuss why he believes AI regulation is moving too fast, the case for open source models, and what previous waves of technological innovation can teach us about building policy without stifling progress. We are live with Steven Sainofsky, amazing tech analyst, author of Hardcore Software, longtime Microsoft leader, and we're so glad to have you back on. Steven, welcome back to you, guys. Super fun to be here. Yeah. So so much in AI. Like, where do we even start? Let's start with the Well, our goal is to say stuff that we haven't said yet, so let's see if we could do that. We will try. Novel insights time. Yeah. Novel insights. So open source, there's been much discussion of regulation of open source, Chinese open source models in particular, on both sides of the pond. You know, China has considered export controls, but also Xi Jinping has said we're encouraging open source. And then in America, we've had, Scott Besson says we're gonna be looking into IP theft, and some people have considered, import controls or requiring a license. So there's a lot going on right now. It's very fluid. What are your takes on regulation of open source models? Well, it just seems the the whole topic of regulation for me just seems, like, completely backwards because it's starting before we even know what we're regulating. And it if you go back in history, one of the best things about the the twentieth century in America was was that so much experimentation was happening, so much innovation. And that does have this potential downstream of like, oh, gosh. This thing happened that we have to roll back. Like, a super famous example was safety in cars, and that car companies spent the first fifty years making cars, making cars. And then in the nineteen sixties, it sort of became clear that, wow, we could actually make cars much, much safer. Mhmm. Now it took sixty years to understand that cars were super dangerous, and it was all that evolution. And and in all fairness, like, it wasn't a a design criteria. You know, seat belts and airbags, …