I'm not of fan of regulation for two reasons - 1) its hard to get right, and 2) its highly susceptible to regulatory capture. That said, if we insist on doing it, we should try to get it correct. As "safety" seems is the primary goal of this AI regulation exercise, I wanted to share that I recently went deep on both the 737 Max (2 crashes) and Fukushima accidents. In both cases, the investigations led to a conclusion that "regulatory capture" was the EXACT failure that led to both safety incidents. Boeing/FAA and Tepco/NISA. As a result, with safety as the #1# goal, the regulator MUST BE someone with authority and accountability "over" the regulated company. The idea that it could be a friendly third party with lots of cross-relationships is structurally broken idea. Ask Mr. Kiyoshi Kurokawa. If we insist on doing this the regulator (1) needs to be 100% independent, 2) the "tests" and "procedures" need to come for the regulator not the company, and (3) the regulator needs to understand their responsibility is to the American people. They need to feel the authority over the regulated company and the responsibility to the nation. It's imperative. Or it will fail.