> How seriously would you take a proposal on car pollution regulation and traffic law updates written by Volkswagen?

they more or less wrote the EU emission regulations

the only reason diesel cars were sold in huge numbers in the EU

Am I the US Government in this scenario?

If Volkswagen's competitors ran around saying that cars aren't dangerous and there's no need to regulate them, and their critics insisted that you're a mark if you accept the premise that cars are a useful transportation method at all, I don't suppose I'd have a choice but to take it seriously. If you know of a similar analysis from a less conflicted group I'd love to read it!

> Until the plurality of humans on the earth understand that human exceptionalism is no longer something to be taking for granted (and shouldn’t have been) there’s never going to be effective global governance of technology.

Could you elaborate more on this? FYI fully agreed on the former sentences.

I highly doubt there is ever going to be "effective governance" of technology for multiple reasons. It would require impossible foreknowledge of the impacts of every possible tech and dystopian levels of control to prevent new ideas from coming into play. We cannot even get the direction of impact right a-priori. Even if they had that this dystopia would have to remain both stable and unmutated over generations. All the while their control creates their own counterforce, incentivized to invent tech outside of their control to topple the forces of stagnation.

The higher taxes proposed here could be used to buy off the electorate.

I used to think that "AI operating in meatspace" was going to remain a tough problem for a long time, but seeing the dramatic developments in robotics over the last 2 years, it's pretty clear that's not going to be the case.

As the masses fade into permanent unemployment, this will likely coincide with (and be partially caused by) a corresponding proliferation in intelligent humanoid robots.

At a certain point, "turning on them" becomes physically impossible.

'main hard part of making a capable robot is the AI part'

Robots are far behind.

Mechanical hands with human equivalent performance is as hard as the AI part.

Strong, fast, durable, tough, touch and temp sensitive, dexterous, light, water-proof, energy efficient, non-overheating.

Muscles and tendons in human hands and forearms self-heal and grow stronger with more use.

Mechanical tendons stretch and break. Small motors have plenty of issues of their own.

Agree for almost all jobs, but some, like my fathers, was about crawling inside huge metal pieces to do precision machining. For unique piecework, it might not be economical to train AI. Surely equivalents to this exist elsewhere

I don't think "replaced" is a good word here.. augmented and expanded. With AI we are expanding our activities, users expect more, competition forces companies to do more.

But AI can't be held liable for its actions, that is one role. It has no direct access to the context it is working in, so it needs humans as a bridge. In the end AI produce outcomes in the same local context, which is for the user. So from intent to guidance to outcomes they are all user based, costs and risks too.

I've found large entrenched players tend to prefer slightly more than a reasonable amount of taxation and regulation in any industry; governments are easier to predict and handle than scrappy competitors.

> its interesting that the ai companies are already saying that.

This is just cheap PR to launder legitimacy and urgency. To create false equivalence between AI agent and an employee.

I think this is a sign of weakness, having seen AI rolled out in many companies where it already shows signs of being absolute disaster (like summaries changing meaning and losing important details - so tasks go in wrong direction and take time to be corrected, developers creating unprecedented amount of tech debt with their vibe coded features, massive amount of content that sound important, but it is just equivalent of spam, managers spending ours with LLM "researching" strategy feeding the FOMO and so on).

This is a horn that must be harped on, frequently and loudly.

Anyone with anxieties over immigration should have those same concerns over AI, many times over.

Skilled immigrants just got a $100,000/year head tax in the US. Where is such a tax for AI?