I think this is interesting fodder for science fiction authors but lacks concrete examples of what exactly it would mean to regulate or engage in a "Butlerian J

I think this is interesting fodder for science fiction authors but lacks concrete examples of what exactly it would mean to regulate or engage in a "Butlerian Jihad against AI." I know things that I would like to see. Like humans "in the loop" (as opposed to "on the loop" or "out of the loop") for certain classes of decision making - for example target selection of military strikes or law enforcement. Or what kinds of information we use to train the decision making models, for example if you feed ML a racist data set and you get a racist algorithm - use that algorithm to decide who to give mortgages and you'll get systematic depression in generational wealth based on racial lines. But this isn't some crusade on AI because it's AI; it has to be based in reality - what AI or ML is being used for, what information it operates on, what decisions it is used to make, and ultimately the human beings that are responsible for those decisions. The reason it is so hard to convince people as to how we should legislate (or otherwise regulate AI) is that every conversation drifts into science fiction and not concrete examples of the ethical issues today and what can be done today. Otherwise it comes off as Luddite fearmongering.