> The idea that there's only one important problem is a fallacy.
I have made no such claim.
The people advocating for regulating AI are claiming it will solve all the relevant problems--i.e., that it will prevent AI from doing great harm. So pointing out a problem that the regulations will not solve is refuting the claims the advocates of regulation are making. That was my point.
That's surprising and seems like an overreach. Whatever those advocates claimed, it doesn't seem very relevant to deciding with or not a particular regulation is a good idea.
> Whatever those advocates claimed, it doesn't seem very relevant to deciding with or not a particular regulation is a good idea.
I don't see why not. The whole point of regulations is to regulate, i.e., to keep the regulated activity within some particular bounds. If the regulation won't accomplish that, then it is pointless. Unless, of course, the actual purpose of the regulation is not the same as the purpose that is publicly stated--which is exactly what happens with regulatory capture.
I have made no such claim.
The people advocating for regulating AI are claiming it will solve all the relevant problems--i.e., that it will prevent AI from doing great harm. So pointing out a problem that the regulations will not solve is refuting the claims the advocates of regulation are making. That was my point.