Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2508.12300

Mutually Assured Deregulation

Gilad Abiri
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We have convinced ourselves that the way to make AI safe is to make it unsafe. Since 2022, policymakers worldwide have embraced the Regulation Sacrifice - the belief that dismantling safety oversight will deliver security through AI dominance. Fearing China or USA will gain advantage, nations rush to eliminate safeguards that might slow progress. This Essay reveals the fatal flaw: though AI poses national security challenges, the solution demands stronger regulatory frameworks, not weaker ones. A race without guardrails breeds shared danger, not competitive strength. The Regulation Sacrifice makes three false promises. First, it promises durable technological leads. But AI capabilities spread rapidly - performance gaps between U.S. and Chinese systems collapsed from 9 percent to 2 percent in thirteen months. When advantages evaporate in months, sacrificing permanent safety for temporary speed makes no sense. Second, it promises deregulation accelerates innovation. The opposite often proves true. Companies report well-designed governance streamlines development. Investment flows toward regulated markets. Clear rules reduce uncertainty; uncertain liability creates paralysis. Environmental standards did not kill the auto industry; they created Tesla and BYD. Third, enhanced national security through deregulation actually undermines security across all timeframes. Near term: it hands adversaries information warfare tools. Medium term: it democratizes bioweapon capabilities. Long term: it guarantees deployment of uncontrollable AGI systems. The Regulation Sacrifice persists because it serves powerful interests, not security. Tech companies prefer freedom to accountability. Politicians prefer simple stories to complex truths. This creates mutually assured deregulation, where each nation's sprint for advantage guarantees collective vulnerability. The only way to win is not to play.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gilad Abiri. 2026-02-04. Mutually Assured Deregulation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12300

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Frontier Lag: A Bibliometric Audit of Capability Misrepresentation in Academic AI Evaluation

LLM evaluations in applied domains tend to reflect models that were already outclassed at time of publication. We observe a publication elicitation gap: the distance between the AI systems generating the results reported in an academic paper and the AI systems that a current reader of that paper would reasonably assume are being referenced. We systematically sweep OpenAlex from 2022-01-01 to 2026-04-01 (n = 112,303 LLM keyword matches). Then, we identify what models were evaluated (n = 18,574 admissible records). We then rank each evaluated LLM against a frontier LLM based on the Epoch AI Capabilities Index (ECI), an aggregate LLM capability score. At time of evaluation, the median paper is evaluating models that are behind frontier LLMs in capability, with a median gap of +10.85 ECI (H1; n = 12,312). This gap is growing, increasing at a rate of +5.53 ECI per year (H2, nominal 95% CI [+5.03, +5.83]). The sign holds even in the absence of any imputation for evaluation date. In papers (n = 728) where the date of evaluation is explicit and the model in question can be resolved to an ECI score, the median gap for H1 is +5.01 ECI. An explicitly stated evaluation date can be found in only 18.4% of full-text papers. After correction, in 52.5% (95% CI: [48.2, 56.9]) of abstracts in our audit, conclusions are stated at the class level ("AI") rather than the model level. For papers about reasoning models, only 3.2% of abstracts and 21.2% of full-text articles disclose the reasoning mode status of the models used (H4). We propose a solution to this problem that is distributed among authors, editors, and funders. First, reporting from authors. VERSIO-AI v1.2 is a proposed 13-item checklist to cover the configuration surface described herein. Second, enforcement from journal editors and peer reviewers. Third, conditioning grants on disclosure and providing API access.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

The Cross-Section of Stock Returns and AI Exposure

We study 380 trillion tokens of realized AI consumption across more than four hundred LLMs. We build a high-frequency AI factor and show that a long-short strategy based on firms' AI exposure earns significantly positive returns. The average strategy return is larger based on intensive, frontier-oriented AI consumption but smaller based on casual or open-weight usage. Internationally, the return spread is significant in developed countries but insignificant in emerging markets. Examining occupational AI exposure, we find more positive exposure in occupations intensive in nonroutine interactive tasks and more negative exposure in those intensive in nonroutine analytical tasks.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

The queer Hero versus the Fool bias of the queer trait: An archetypometric analysis of the collective portrayal of queerness in fictional stories

Visibility in media is pivotal for identity development and for broadening societal views of gender and sexuality. Queer representation has increased in recent years, yet damaging stereotypes and tropes persist. Here, we focus on queer portrayal and its perception by audiences in fictional stories (television, film, and literature) by studying characters by their quantified archetypes which are operationalizations of common conceptions such as Hero, Diva, and Outcast. We use the archetypometrics and Fandom's LGBTQIA+ datasets to study samples of fictional characters along the trait differential spanning straight to queer. We find, quantify, and explain a seeming paradox. The characters with the highest queer score present positive primary archetypes and are typically Heroes rather than Fools, Angels rather than Demons, and Adventurers rather than Traditionalists. But evaluation across many stories for the straight-queer trait itself reveals a strong collective-writing bias towards Fool (away from Hero) and no meaningful loading for the other two dimensions. Our analysis offers a population-scale view of the complexities of queer portrayal, while also pointing to risks in blindly training on many-authored story corpora.

cs.CY↗