Interesting take, but I can’t see how the points are their own counter arguments when considering the devastating costs to individual people and human society at large. Should we just accept that as a cost of innovation? I don’t think so.

The point I’m trying to convey is that we know enough to establish a basic framework, something none of those other industries had at this stage, but arguably should have. Some of my more recent articles explain what that could look like to make sure it doesn’t stifle innovation or make barriers of entry too high.

I completely agree with you that if entrenched players have a regulatory moat around them, we’ll see the same concentration in AI (already happening) as we do in other areas.

Given the history of new technology from the examples I gave, I’m not sure why it’s a bigger risk to establish a framework now compared to the almost guaranteed problems that will inevitably ensue otherwise. A framework to set some guardrails may not be foolproof, but it’s better than nothing like we’ve almost always had before.