Dario's regulatory logic is internally consistent but practically impossible because it requires China to participate in a regulatory regime while simultaneously banning chip sales to them.
Anthropic's letter argues for a regulatory regime that must include China to be effective, yet the same letter advocates not selling chips to China — creating a contradiction that is logically coherent but politically impossible, effectively a stalling tactic. ✦ AI generated
Rory · 20VC · 2026-07-30 · original ↗
starts at this moment · 22:38
The fun thing is when you read on the remedies the third remedy which is in my view proof of the impractical nature of it because Dar is so smart. He's like says if we're going to regulate these things they exist in the rest of the world and most baddies are in the rest of the world. So it doesn't help us to regulate them in the US if all the attacks are coming from overseas. So it says it in the letter. Therefore we would have to have a regulatory regime that includes participation from China. And at this point, in my view, you're just disappearing up the realms of unrealism. We've just torn up our last strategic arms nuclear treaty. We can't regulate bombs, which really kill people. The idea that the solution, I mean, cuz what I like about him is he's so logical. He's like, "Oh, logically, if I'm going to do this, I have to get China on side. So, let's assume we get China on side." But the first sentence says the baddies, we're not going to sell them chips. And then the last sentence says, "But we think they'll agree to regulate this [ __ ] with us." It's just not practical.
verbatim transcript · starts at 22:38
22:19open weight. You should just tip your hand and say they're banned because they're Chinese, right? >> That's all it is. Well, but but the point is it's a diff it's a whole new I mean if you that's why I said the two letters were talking past each other. >> I mean if you read the two letters you know Jensen's talking about open weight good worldwide community blah and
22:38anthropic very clearly says we worry about these models in the hand of total authoritarian regimes like China. >> Yeah. >> And second thing is you know we worry about them being used to do cyber attacks here. Now the fun thing is when you read on the remedies the third remedy which is in my view proof of the impractical nature of it because Dar is so smart. He's like says if we're going
22:59to regulate these things they exist in the rest of the world and most baddies are in the rest of the world. So it doesn't help us to regulate them in the US if all the attacks are coming from overseas. So it says it in the letter. Therefore we would have to have a regulatory regime that includes participation from China. And at this point, in my view, you're just
23:17disappearing up the realms of unrealism. We've just torn up our last strategic arms nuclear treaty. We can't regulate bombs, which really kill people. I think the idea, we couldn't deal with co in China. The idea that the solution, I mean, cuz what I like about him is he's so logical. He's like, "Oh, logically, if I'm going to do this, I have to get China on side. So, let's assume we get
23:36China on side." But the first sentence says the baddies, we're not going to sell them chips. And then the last sentence says, "But we think they'll agree to regulate this [ __ ] with us." It's just not practical. >> It's a great stall tactic. >> It's like wait until China wants to work on this with us in 2049 that you know right after we tell you what happened in
23:53Wuhan and we tell you how many nukes we have in the bunkers. >> So why does he want to do a stool tactic? Jason >> Royy's point is the logic is unassalable. Like we one we we we have to we we need to be very careful of authoritarian governments. That's DJI on steroids, right? And but then at the end he's saying for it to work we need them
24:09to participate. And the the logic is makes sense but it's just never going to happen. So if you buy into his logic then then you you know then then it'll just be forever. That's why I hate when people talk past each other because I think what would the process be for a US open weight model like poolside or thinking machines you know are we really dealing with a national security issue