While I agree with other commenters that this is kind of hypocritical on its face, there is a strongman interpretation that’s more generous. It would probably go something more like this:
The US crafts regulations that work with businesses while the EU crafts them and is OK to sacrifice businesses. Additionally, the EU crafts regulations that can accomplish nothing but increase costs and reduce quality without helping the end goal. For example, all the cookie banners that have pervaded the internet. They don’t actually help reduce tracking, they make the web less usable, and they’ve made compliance more complicated, and building a website is more expensive as you have to add these banners. Sure GDPR has strengths but the cookie aspect is a miss. In fact, the EU is as easily bamboozled as the US considering that Google had a huge hand in shaping GDPR legislation.
Another strong man. The US hasn’t started considering how to regulate so Sam is saying “great, here’s how you regulate” in the EU they’ve already outlined principles (proposed regulations? Can’t recall) and maybe he sees those as problematic and that his discussions with them haven’t yielded improvements.
Of course even the strongman interpretations are problematic here but just saying. I think there may be more nuance here than the hot take based on the headlines alone.
> …he was miffed by the way the European body defined “high-risk” systems..
> According to Time, the OpenAI CEO said “If we can comply, we will, and if we can’t, we’ll cease operating… We will try. But there are technical limits to what’s possible.”
> He called for some regulation “between the traditional European approach and the traditional U.S. approach,” whatever that means.
It’s important to catch the author’s non-neutral tone here. They’ve clearly staked out a position and it’s worthwhile to keep that in mind.
The US crafts regulations that work with businesses while the EU crafts them and is OK to sacrifice businesses. Additionally, the EU crafts regulations that can accomplish nothing but increase costs and reduce quality without helping the end goal. For example, all the cookie banners that have pervaded the internet. They don’t actually help reduce tracking, they make the web less usable, and they’ve made compliance more complicated, and building a website is more expensive as you have to add these banners. Sure GDPR has strengths but the cookie aspect is a miss. In fact, the EU is as easily bamboozled as the US considering that Google had a huge hand in shaping GDPR legislation.