This assumes that IBM is not serious about trying to replace jobs, but is trying to make a strategic 3D chess move. I'm very skeptical that this is the case. B

This assumes that IBM is not serious about trying to replace jobs, but is trying to make a strategic 3D chess move. I'm very skeptical that this is the case. But, let's say it is. It might play well with investors, but the idea that it's going to spur regulation or legislation to slow down AI development seems optimistic at best. That assumes a government and elected officials who are looking out for workers and not the investors who are going to be giddy about this. In the U.S., at least, government has been actively trying to suppress wages and maintain higher levels of unemployment. Why would this spur any action to slow down AI?