Banning AI: the debate pitting wokes against pragmatists

The crusade against AI: ban it or regulate it?

The debate over the future of artificial intelligence has moved from the labs to the ideological trenches. While some are calling for a total ban, others warn that such a measure would only hurt those at the bottom. The discussion, with echoes of the nuclear race, has become a battlefield where antiestéticar, envy and economic interests all mix.

Those who want to switch off the machine

Some argue that AI should simply be eradicated. The argument: it is causing far too many problems. But the rebuttal comes immediately: bans never affect those who impose them. It is always those at the bottom who lose access to the tool, while those at the top keep using it. The classic "do as I say, not as I do".

At the other end are those who do not want to ban it, but rather constrain it. The idea of limiting its development and setting rules seems more reasonable. But who sets the rules? The big tech companies, which hold the power, will hardly accept a straitjacket that curbs their business.

The China factor and the bubble

The viability of any ban runs into a wall: China. Nobody in their right mind will dare slow down AI knowing that Beijing never will. It would be competitive suicide. Moreover, some point out that the debate is not really about banning, but about halting development before the economic bubble behind it bursts. A bubble that, like all bubbles, will eventually pop.

That is exactly where the analysis gets stuck. If China does not slow down, who dares? For now, the answer is nobody. Meanwhile, the bubble keeps inflating. The anecdote of the conversation between Bernie Sanders and the AI Claude, mentioned as part of an election campaign, illustrates how much is at stake: even the most sceptical politicians end up talking to the machine.