So in good HN style, I am going to react to a title, before reading the thing. But my excuse is that titles frame the discussion, and it's the framing that I w

So in good HN style, I am going to react to a title, before reading the thing. But my excuse is that titles frame the discussion, and it's the framing that I want to talk about. Given what a big and varied deal AI is, it is inconceivable that it will be unregulated. I mean considering its use in cars and medical imaging, it already is. But "should X be regulated" is a vague and pointless question. Better questions are * What kind of challenges does X pose that might require new rules? * What special features of X should make lawmakers/judges etc think in new ways? * What jurisprudential principles apply more to X than to most other things? * How do existing legal frameworks play with X: e.g. perhaps AI in cars should just be ordinary motor safety regulation regardless of AI-ness.