[pc86]

It's at best sloppy to just say "this needs to be regulated, but I can't be bothered to suggest even one possible regulation that would fix anything I find so objectionable." The author has a doctorate and works at Microsoft Research on AI. If she thinks it should be regulated (which is absolutely a fair position to take) I'd much rather have her be the one suggesting regulations than some 80 year old lawyer who's been in Congress since the civil rights era or some special interest lobbyist.

[dj_mc_merlin]

Her understanding of AI does not translate to an understanding of how a society runs or how laws should be made. If anything, many people overgeneralize their expertise at one task to suggest bad solutions to problems from other domains. Especially engineers and PhDs.

I agree that she's still better than most US politicians. I have some faith in politicians from Western Europe to do half the correct thing, or at least not be swayed by arguments coming from money too much. Not that much faith, but still..

[PeterisP]

If someone wants to make an argument "this needs to be regulated" then they need to assert that the benefits of doing so outweigh the drawbacks. The article does not really do that; it points out a class of potential harm, but it does not try to present an reasonable argument that regulation is likely to succeed in preventing that harm; and the balance of pros vs cons can't even be discussed without at least some general idea about what kind of regulation we're talking about.