> This particular comment was really about a much bigger issue: state laws being used abusively, to restrict individual freedom.
I agree that is a bad thing. Ideally the constitution serves to protect people's rights, but that depends on the courts.
Personally I don't think it helps that corporations are considered people (and what happened to limited liability being given in return for a public good, as opposed to purely motivated by profit with no regard for the commons?), and political money is considered free speech (media does a good job of using dollars to influence voters).
> thoughts on the right thing to do
It's a big topic, and there are considerations like the first amendment (is free speech for corporations a good thing?) and the interstate commerce clause.
I don't think it's unreasonable for states to outlaw things like self-driving cars at this time (this needs to be safe for other drivers and peds, and a Tesla can't pass a drivers license test yet). Or outlawing facial recognition in public (stores and advertisers will continue to live). Or banning the use of facial recognition by police departments (or at least require warrants and reporting/oversight). Maybe we should make it illegal for an AI to masquerade as a human. Or maybe AI can be regulated as a munition, like encryption was a couple decades ago (although AI is dangerous to people, as opposed to governments).
We seem to be in a position of handling so many issues at such a large scale. International companies. National laws and regulatory bodies. Global communications. Some serious trust busting might help, but our politicians seem to have other priorities.
> I'm afraid we're going to have to white-knuckle our way through this for a while.
Theoretically we can outlaw anything, as long as we collectively agree. We've outlawed plants, nudity, sleeping in the wrong spot, certain sexual acts between consenting adults in their bedrooms, etc. We could have laws white listing new things, instead of assuming that the public won't be hurt. I like the ability for folks to do their own different things. I'm glad there's groups like the Amish out there, for example.
I do agree with your statement above. I don't assume that there is a magic fix for this, and most of us are going to be along for the ride.
And part is that the Internet crosses state boundaries too efficiently. As you note, national boundaries aren't all that much less porous, but there is at least some national control even in countries without a Great Firewall.
States simply lack any tools for implementing Internet regulation. Either everybody ends up following the most restrictive rules, or everybody ignores all of the state rules until a national framework is established (as was done with sales taxes).
Of course all of that is just pointing out what's wrong, without suggesting a better solution. This particular comment was really about a much bigger issue: state laws being used abusively, to restrict individual freedom. This is a bigger political issue in the US, independent of "AI".
Setting aside my fist-shaking, you did ask if I had thoughts on the right thing to do. And unfortunately, the best I can come up with is this: any regulations will be outdated even if they could somehow be thoughtfully considered.
And I haven't yet seen anything that actively needs to be regulated. Regulations are written in blood, and there hasn't been any blood yet. There will be, I'm certain, but I'm equally certain that it will happen no matter what regulations are passed, at any level.
Actually, there has been blood. An AI talked somebody into killing themselves. But I don't think there is any regulation that is going to solve that shy of a permanent ban, and I don't think that's going to be considered.
So much as I hate to say this, I'm afraid we're going to have to white-knuckle our way through this for a while.