I don't like this inevitability framing. It's not true of other actually dangerous things. "There is no sane world where we can stop drugs/nukes/guns/CP, even i

I don't like this inevitability framing. It's not true of other actually dangerous things. "There is no sane world where we can stop drugs/nukes/guns/CP, even if every single chemist/physicist/metallurgist/pedo were to vanish tomorrow, it would only be a stopgap [thus we should just let everyone have those things]." Yes, those things will exist in some highly restricted or illegal contexts, but that doesn't mean any of them need to be in the workplace or accessible to every citizen. Usage and access and development could be heavily restricted in just the same way. You don't think AI is dangerous enough for this comparison to be sensible, but I'm not so sure. Likewise, arguments that other countries will have it therefore we must have it, are specious. Some countries have nukes, we don't let every country have them, we certainly don't let citizens have them; some countries produce CP, we don't let citizens access it; some countries have millions of guns among citizens, we don't let the guns cross the border. All this is to say that it would not be infeasible to broadly ban AI in most contexts. Obviously this won't happen in the current political climate, but it's not a law of the universe that AI pervading daily life is inevitable.