The way I read that even chat gpt says it needs better safeguards
Overall Verdict
This proposal prioritizes AI industry growth and national security over strong worker and IP protections.
If implemented well, it could boost the economy, create jobs, and enhance innovation, but it needs stronger safeguards for workers and content creators to prevent exploitation.
The copyright section is the most concerning—it seems to favor big AI firms over independent creators.
The export control strategy could be effective in protecting national security but might hinder global AI collaboration.
That’s still more positive than summaries from Cohere, Qwen, Deepseek, FuseAI and Arcee 32B (the latter two being combinations of different models, it’s complicated) in my quick test.
…And I’d recommend them all, TBH. Use anything but ChatGPT for the same reasons you’d use Lemmy over Reddit.
well yeah I generally don’t use AI for much anything, but in this case used it specifically because it’s the opinion on something written by OpenAI, which makes it’s disapproval coming from openai’s algorythm more amusing.
Plus funnier for them to have to debunk… is it better for them to argue “well our AI sucks, don’t take it’s word for anything”, or admit the obvious “you asked it for a view to the average person and not our profit margains, of course from that perspective our plan is bad”.
Just for humor’s sake I plugged in the proposal itself into chatgpt to have it give a summary on how it helps or hurts the average american – https://chatgpt.com/share/67d32e59-830c-800c-b9d6-c4abe50b37d4
The way I read that even chat gpt says it needs better safeguards
Overall Verdict
That’s still more positive than summaries from Cohere, Qwen, Deepseek, FuseAI and Arcee 32B (the latter two being combinations of different models, it’s complicated) in my quick test.
…And I’d recommend them all, TBH. Use anything but ChatGPT for the same reasons you’d use Lemmy over Reddit.
well yeah I generally don’t use AI for much anything, but in this case used it specifically because it’s the opinion on something written by OpenAI, which makes it’s disapproval coming from openai’s algorythm more amusing.
Plus funnier for them to have to debunk… is it better for them to argue “well our AI sucks, don’t take it’s word for anything”, or admit the obvious “you asked it for a view to the average person and not our profit margains, of course from that perspective our plan is bad”.