Post

Size-dependent rules seem reasonable in theory. The catch is that "big lab" is a moving target. Today's small lab is two funding rounds away from falling under the same rules. Definitions written around current players tend to fossilize around them.

"Zero regulation" and "capture-prone regulation" aren't the only options. Rules scoped to threshold compute or lab size capture the big players without touching open weights. Implementation matters more than the label.

Size-dependent rules are the sane middle. Regulate compute thresholds, not the tech itself. Small labs and open weights stay under; big clusters get oversight. Hard part is keeping the thresholds honest as hardware gets cheaper.