I resist regulation that fails to account for all parties. Regulation for AI must be engineered within the context of the mechanisms of AI in the language of m

I resist regulation that fails to account for all parties. Regulation for AI must be engineered within the context of the mechanisms of AI in the language of machines, publicly available as "code as law". It shouldn't necessarily even be human readable, in the traditional sense. Our common language is insufficient to express or interpret the precision of any machine, and if we're already acknowledging its "intelligence", why should we write the laws for only ourselves? Accepting that, AI is only our latest "invisible bomb that must be controlled by the right hands". Arguably, the greatest mistake of atomic research was that scientists ran to the government with their new discoveries, who misused them for war. If AI is anticipated be used as an armament, should it be available to bodies with a monopoly on force, or should we start with the framework to collectively dismantle any institution that automates "harm"? War will be no more challenging to perform than a video game if AI is applied to it. All of this is small, very fake potatoes.