I see a future where AI is banned to avoid that situation. If AI creates too much work and ends reducing advanced countries output then something will need to be done.

Individually, AI helps me to be more productive. But, as you point out, at society level makes everybody less productive. So, I have no incentive to stop. Nobody has. Only if we all agree to stop using it then it works. A tragedy of the commons problem.

▲

anigbrowl 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is about as likely as magic getting banned in your world. Stick to demon-slaying and leave the technological dystopia up to us.

▲

sublinear 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this is a lot more likely than people realize, but some won't like the execution on this.

It's either a vague blanket "ban on AI" that wraps up all dev work in red tape, or it's shutting down specific businesses like OpenAI and Anthropic while letting Google and Microsoft continue to dominate.

▲

CodingJeebus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But how does a true AI ban actually look in practice? The open weight models are out there, the hardware is out there. Spamming is already illegal but so commonplace that it's pretty laughably enforced at this point. Even really heinous stuff in the dark corners of the web still finds its way into the hands of users, I don't see how AI is any different in this regard.

▲

dylan604 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Spamming is already illegal but so commonplace that it's pretty laughably enforced at this point

I see comments similar to this about tech issues, and it always reads as if the person is assuming that these illegal tech activities are being done under the jurisdiction of the laws making it illegal. All you need is one jurisdiction that is not under the influence of the country with laws, and you make it impossible to stop these "illegal" activities

	▲	pixl97 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For the US it is worse. Political spam isn't spam. Heh. This is the same problem with AI bans that are not unilateral. The powerful will leave the tools open for them and their buddies while punishing everyone else.

▲

sedan_baklazhan 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A true [AI as-we-know-it-today] ban would require author consent on all materials added to a model, resulting in royalty payments (btw, I believe that’s how it should have been done from the start).

▲

wredcoll 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Right? If they had lost that copyright lawsuit, openai would have stopped existing.

Of course presumably chinese models would keep existing and that gets a little weird.

▲

sedan_baklazhan 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You can always ban Chinese models, impose sanctions for stealing IP, etc.

	▲	pixl97 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That only works when you're more powerful than that entity. Hence why sanctions against the US almost never worked. This is now true for China, they are a massive nation state with immense power.

▲

Barrin92 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>Spamming is already illegal but so commonplace

here in Germany commercial cold calling carries fines of tens of thousands per call and I have received one in 20+ years.

The overwhelming majority of spam is advertisement. Someone by definition cannot advertise themselves without making themselves liable, so just up the penalty beyond the expected value of the spam and it works perfectly well.

▲

chneu 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Lol bans don't work. Next up let's ban drugs.

Oh wait

▲

waisbrot 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think "bans don't work" is the correct take-away from the USA's "war on drugs".

Maybe it would be fair to say "you can't just ban something." For example, tobacco-sales are restricted to minors in the US. And smoking among minors did drop sharply (until vapes came along). There were several controls used: outlawing sales, raising overall prices (so that teens generally couldn't afford to smoke), education campaigns, and making smoking more difficult in general.

In contrast, the War on Drugs mostly involved incarcerating vulnerable drug-users. Some similarities to the current war on immigrants.

I think a tobacco-style attempt to ban AI would look like: - A large electricity surcharge to inference-providers, who would pass the cost to customers, making AI far more expensive. Maybe it would be worthwhile to drop $10M/year on code-assistance or slide-deck clip-art, but not for an individual to ask how to restore their Instagram account. - An education program telling people that they sound cringe when they write in AI voice, and which contexts it's appropriate/inappropriate to do that. (Don't AI your wedding vows.) - Certain types of harm would be the responsibility of the provider. Maybe if the AI medical assistant fills out the form incorrectly then the provider is liable for the malpractice suit. Or if it tells a teen to kill themselves the provider is liable for wrongful-death. These would likely result in the provider trying to cut off access to any of the groups where they couldn't shift liability.

▲

otabdeveloper4 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Works for China and Russia. Skill issue.

	▲	GamerUncle 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		it lol does not they are simply not as attractive targets, but there is still plenty of drugs there too.