They need to completely reconsider their approach because regulating 'AI' really doesn't make any sense, and there's hardly a way to even define in legal terms

They need to completely reconsider their approach because regulating 'AI' really doesn't make any sense, and there's hardly a way to even define in legal terms what 'AI' is. Instead - they should focus on applied outcomes that may be affected and signal their intent to monitor events in those areas and regulate only if necessary. 'Deep fakes' illustrates this quite well. If someone can manually photoshop a 'fake' would that be legal? What if they used tools that leveraged AI? Does it have to be 'automatically generated' to be AI? If there were to be legislation it would be around 'misrepresentation' in this case, and should meaningfully be applied to the outcome, not the technology. They mention surveillance and other scenarios, again, the 'means' really doesn't matter that much - what matters is privacy, where and when people are monitored, etc.. We use considerably amounts of real world data to build models for a variety of things - whether it's spreadsheets, algorithms, Machine Learning or Neural Networks, or more likely a variety of those things together ... doesn't matter. What matters is what people are doing with it and how citizens are affected.