Would it make sense in order to regulate AI to force companies to publish the dataset they used to train a specific model?

@kobenz my point was the monopoly avoidance. Thanks for the answers.

@kobenz 's argument is already solid enough, but here is another line of thinking: although the original training dataset is relevant to the performance of an AI, it pales in comparison with the usage and feedback data from real world interactions, used to train and reinforce newer iterations of the AI.
Thus, to be effective, a training and validation data disclosure policy would require the disclosure of real life user interactions as well, and that is a whole other Pandora box.

if you trust that they'd actually publish genuine datasets, and not just garbled nonsense?

also: you can't regulate technology. you can only annoy the few people who aren't trying to use it for evil.

@tosensei , as said @kobenz . And the point is not to make it impossible to use technology for evil, but to make it illegal to make large profits from it.

For example, regulating deepfakes prevents some shithead from copying Hollywood stars to feature on their ads, and getting away with it. It also vastly limits deepfake revenge pornography, since platforms cannot simply ignore the problem.

Regulation and it's proper application using legal means, by itself indeed does not solves the problem of misusing technology, but it is the most fundamental step.

Think hard drugs. Laws and law enforcement did not make those go away. But it could be way worse. For example, if "McMeth" was a product that was allowed to exist and be advertised in billboards.

@JsonBoa counter argument:

prohibition in america. did nothing at all to stop alcohol consumption, and is basically the only reason why organised crime is as powerful in the us as it is now.

counter argument 2: hard AND soft drugs.

when you buy ANY drug on the streets, the substance itself is statistically much less dangerous than whatever gets mixed in to increase the profit margin. you have no idea how pure or how strong the stuff is you're taking. and as is obvious: people are still taking it, even if it's illegal.

now contrast that with legalisation:

* quality control

* taxation

* no more revenue for organised crime

* better youth protection due to actual age checks

* no more incentives to invent the next designer drug that is "technically legal", because there wasn't any time to outlaw it (i recall the totally brainfucking stuff just called "spice" being en vogue for some time that was supposed to be "legal weed")

* less money wasted on "war of drugs" and other stuff

@tosensei exactly my point: proper regulation leads to benefits, even if it does not obliterates the problem.
That's why AI and technology in general must be regulated. Otherwise it'll become (even more) organized crime and shoddy coding all over, especially after a prolonged period of no regulation leads to an overcorrective prohibition crackdown.