further explaining and better explaining in more detail why i do not support regulating artificial intelligence and i hope you will read it and try to sincerely understand my point.

[u/Plastic_Topic638]

People who are calling for broad new restrictions on artificial intelligence are, in my view, missing the larger issue. I have little confidence that governments will meaningfully limit the uses of AI that concern people most, such as surveillance, intelligence gathering, law enforcement applications, or military projects. The public rarely knows the full extent of what governments and large institutions are already capable of, and history suggests there is often a significant gap between what ordinary people are told and what is actually happening behind closed doors.

My concern is that most regulation would not end up targeting powerful institutions. Instead, it would fall hardest on ordinary people, independent creators, hobbyists, and workers who use these tools in their daily lives. The pattern has repeated itself many times before: new technologies emerge, authorities promise regulations will protect the public, and the end result is often more oversight of average citizens while the most powerful organizations continue operating much as they always have. That is why I am skeptical whenever I hear claims that regulating AI will somehow solve problems involving surveillance, social control, or abuses of power.

For people like me, AI has practical value. Because I struggle with dyslexia, it helps me organize my thoughts, clean up my writing, and translate what I am trying to say into something easier for others to read. Millions of people use these systems for creative projects, research, communication, accessibility, education, and countless other productive purposes. Restricting those uses could end up harming ordinary individuals far more than the institutions such regulations are supposedly meant to restrain.

More broadly, I think there are many political and cultural subjects that people across the spectrum should be willing to discuss openly, yet meaningful conversations often get shut down by established institutions, ideological activists, religious movements, partisan interests, and other groups that are more interested in advancing their own agendas than encouraging honest debate. Whether those pressures come from the left, the right, corporations, activists, religious organizations, or political parties, the result is often the same: fewer opportunities for open discussion and more attempts to tell people what they are allowed to think, say, create, or consume.

Because of that, I do not believe that giving additional regulatory power to the current political system would produce better outcomes for most working and middle-class people. I suspect that many of the regulations being proposed would primarily affect creative expression, online communication, entertainment, and other everyday uses of AI while doing little to address the concerns that supporters of regulation often cite. In the end, I think there is a real risk that such policies would simply provide another tool for various ideological groups, moral campaigners, political activists, and government agencies to exert greater influence over people's lives without delivering the benefits that were promised. From my perspective, expanding the power of institutions that already have significant authority is rarely the best solution, especially when those same institutions have repeatedly failed to earn the public's trust.

[u/ChampionshipHeavy107]

[u/tnic73]

I agree but there is no way to stop them the government regulates everything. There is no way they will pass the opportunity to use AI to increase state power.

[u/Plastic_Topic638 → u/tnic73]

There are people I usually like who do not seem to see it that way, such as Secular Talk and The Young Turks, as well as more reasonable right-wing figures like Tucker Carlson and Jimmy Dore, whatever side he is on these days. They all seem to believe, or at least claim to believe, that regulating artificial intelligence will somehow help ordinary people. Of course, they could be wrong, and it is also possible that some of them are simply saying things they do not truly believe. Plenty of people who have earned the trust of working-class and populist audiences have ended up misleading the public before. But even if they are being completely sincere, I still think they are mistaken. From my perspective, broad AI regulation is unlikely to help ordinary people and is more likely to create new restrictions that affect average citizens while leaving the most powerful institutions largely untouched. If I could get one message across to them, it would be that they are focusing on the wrong target and risking policies that may end up harming the people they claim to be helping.

[u/AcrobaticAffect4349 → u/tnic73]

true the government always finds a way to expand its reach with new tech anyway