A key distinction in AI regulation is to focus on making specific harmful applications illegal—like theft or violence—rather than restricting the underlying mathematical models. This approach punishes bad actors without stifling core innovation and ceding technological leadership to other nations.

While crucial, the slow, administrative, and sometimes political process of defining "responsible AI" is becoming a deterrent for pharma companies. Aditya Gherola argues that regulators must move faster to provide clear guidelines, preventing the concept from becoming a roadblock to critical innovation in drug discovery.

Dean Ball proposes that regulating AI should model financial services, not pharmaceuticals. Instead of approving each individual model (like a drug), regulators should focus on the institutional soundness and governance of the labs themselves (like banks), as generalist AIs lack clear 'endpoints' for product-specific testing.

The push for AI regulation risks repeating mistakes made in pharmaceuticals, where a singular focus on safety, without balancing it against potential benefits, led to regulatory capture and slowed progress. This could cripple AI's potential for societal good in healthcare, energy, and more.

A responsible, iterative approach to AI regulation begins not with new frameworks, but by auditing existing laws. Domain experts should update current rules for professions like medicine or finance to ensure they explicitly cover actions performed by or with AI, addressing immediate gaps without stifling future innovation.

The 'FDA for AI' analogy is flawed because the FDA's rigid, one-drug-one-disease model is ill-suited for a general-purpose technology. This structure struggles with modern personalized medicine, and a similar top-down regime for AI could embed faulty assumptions, stifling innovation and adaptability for a rapidly evolving field.

A16z argues we are in the "Wright Brothers moment" of AI. Regulating foundational models now—which are essentially just math—would stifle fundamental discovery, akin to trying to regulate flight experiments before airplanes existed. The focus should be on application-level harms, not the underlying technology development.

AI expert Max Tegmark argues that regulation, like the FDA for pharma, would shift incentives. Instead of a 'race to the bottom' on unchecked capabilities, companies would compete to be first to develop provably safe AI. This would create a golden age of innovation in areas like medicine while sidelining riskier applications.

Overly-specific regulation focused on AI tools (e.g., model size) risks accidentally stifling valuable, unforeseen use cases. A better policy focuses on outcomes. For example, prosecute fraud committed with an LLM, but don't regulate the LLM itself, thereby protecting innovation while punishing misuse.