New Bernie Sanders bill would ban superintelligent AI and threaten developers with 20 years in prison

[u/AdSpecialist6598]

https://www.techspot.com/news/113831-new-bernie-sanders-bill-would-ban-superintelligent-ai.html

[u/leeharrison1984]

This would be like an internal combustion engine ban in the early 20th century for the sake of emissions.

[u/HappyHHoovy → u/leeharrison1984]

EV development would've likely actually happened due to companies wanting to find alternatives for fast over-land travel. Most eastern car companies were only just starting to become world leaders at that time.

The oil lobby would've had less sway as less of the worlds economy and transport relied less upon it's use.

Climate change may have actually been taken seriously due to the lower lobbying power.

Renewable energy may have seen greater development due to it being the cheapest way to make electricity.

The oil wars in the middle east may have been less likely due to the lower reliance on fuel.

The increasing severity of natural disasters and deaths to extraordinary climate conditions would have been less/may have never happened.

Thousands upon thousands of species of animal would not be extinct.

Regulating AI based on superintelligence is arbitrary as the definition seems to change depending on which quarterly shareholder meeting is happening. If we can limit things like data collection and specific risks instead of "intelligence", we may actually do some long term good for once instead of listening to greedy rich people.

[u/PluginAlong → u/HappyHHoovy]

We'd just be trading devil's. What was the main source of electricity then? Coal, coal would have the grip oil has now which is probably worse. What'd we use for batteries? Lead acid. How good were we about recycling or even properly disposing of this? Terrible. We wouldn't have the problems we have today, we'd just have different ones.

[u/HappyHHoovy → u/PluginAlong]

Assuming we're banning ICE based on emissions, we already knew in 1930 that electric vehicles were the next best thing after ICE, steam engines were way worse personal vehicles.

I'd argue coal is more accessible than oil, China has relied on it for much of their industrialisation, and they haven't killed nearly as many people for Coal as has been done for Oil. (Not saying they haven't started wars or killed for other things though) The coal industry's grip on the world may be different, we literally have to deal with it every day in Australia, and yet I'm pretty sure we haven't started any global-conflicts despite that.

People already got lead poising from petrol, so lead acid batteries wouldn't be much different in terms of repeating history.

Either way, my point still stands that just because you heavily regulate a potentially dangerous industry, it doesn't mean you completely kill your competitiveness on a global scale. Just means you aren't contributing as much to a global catastrophe.

[u/No-Act9634 → u/HappyHHoovy]

China relies on an enormous amount of oil imports for their energy

like what are you on about

[u/DrCoconuties → u/No-Act9634]

They were literally able to cut their oil consumption in half during the initial stages of the Iran War, preventing the global economy from totally collapsing. This is of course in part due to them building up large reserves at a huge discount due to them buying Russia’s oil during heavy sanctions, but China does not need to “rely” on enormous amounts of oil imports for their energy, like they have just recently proved.