[throw646577]

In general, if you harm everyone in an instinctively obvious but factually hard-to-demonstrate way, there aren't any meaningful penalties. The situations in which "we all suffer" are the ones where people get away with it, eh?

Personifying it this way -- finding someone who is clearly injured -- is the only way to make progress.

[nonrandomstring]

"A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." -- Stalin

Thanks for replying. I wonder, although, in US America for example, it requires "demonstrable harm" to bring lawsuits etc, there is an enduring concept of "the fabric of society" [0] in many legal traditions. (I think it is likely examined by J.S. Mill) and even appears in US congressional commentary [1]. In a digital context there is some mileage here [3].

Might we see a successful lawsuit on the merits that the "mere existence" of some technologies is an affront. "Artificial Intelligence" is after all "artifice"

artifice: a clever trick, guile, deception, cunning, a skillful or artful contrivance

[0] https://societyforpeace.com/fabric-of-society-meaning/

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1027...

[3] https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol27/iss1/2/