[beau_g]

Of course, laws/regulations are enforced by the party in a country that has a monopoly on violence, and use the threat of violence to enforce (either imprisonment or a monetary fine, monetary fines are a derivative of kidnapping as money takes time to accumulate). Of course I'm not arguing against these functions in general, they should be used in ways that prevent an even worse act of violence (ex. a corporation wasting the time and money of millions of people by selling them a dangerous product). The application layer is where I believe laws and regulations are appropriate though, not preventing the development of the technology (ex. trying to limit who, how, and when someone/some company can do a large training run for an AI video model, because AI video models will be leveraged by scammers down the line).

[toogan]

Threat of violence is not violence.

A policeman standing on a public square threatening to incarcerate anybody who is violent results in no violence actually happening at that square. Take away that regulation (in form of the policeman) and watch the actual violence start.

[yarekt]

That’s a very narrow view of humanity and morality. Only psychopaths (in a clinical sense, not derogatory) model their actions strictly by what’s legal.

Many things are moral, but have no legal coverage, some things are moral but illegal, and some immoral but legal.

[yarekt]

Hmm, I see where you’re coming from. Monetary fines impact corporations “where it hurts”, i.e. the bottom line.

But yea, that’s the only language that a corporate entity understands, unfortunately.