We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice.
We do have limits for how much work a human is allowed to do and, based on the experience of Amazon workers, they are due for some tightening already. I'm not seeing a clear case for AI but I wouldn't discount it entirely either.
I imagine a solution would be a knowledge worker's bill of rights that declares the amount of output that one can reasonably expect from a human. You could add some measurements like "a knowledge worker cannot be expected to understand and take responsibility for more than X printed pages of work per day", with the expectations that if your employees are overworked then the accountability falls on you.
[1] DUIs too: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2026/04/still-illegal-to-driv...
The whole point of a tool is that it increases the amount of output we can expect from workers. Otherwise we'd still all be doing agriculture, because the farmer's bill of rights sets the maximum output of a farm and there's not enough surplus for non-farmers.
IMO the key is risk: right now no one is taking responsibility of the AI errors (IMO by design), but the second we codify who's legally responsible for them we'll see calls for slowing down coming from those groups.
Protect them from what, exactly?
There are no legal carveouts for that.
Why not highways? That's an arbitrary line to draw.
We exclude plenty of people from society, at least in the abstract. Someone who simply acts weird can be excluded from society. There are certainly no law which forces people to include them?
>the object of anger at "those darn Luddites"
Again, I'm not sure what kinds of laws could reasonably prevent this. Seems like we're all basically free to criticize one another for personal beliefs. If that wasn't the case, then 99% of social media would be in constant breach of the law lol
>You can't tell an Amish he can't use physical coins
Well, for one, laws protecting the acceptance of US currency aren't specific to Amish people based on their beliefs. It's more about protecting the value of US currency. And two, private companies are allowed to not accept physical currency. Plenty of companies only accept credit card, etc. That's legal. And Amish people wouldn't be able to purchase goods and services from such places.
Of course, the Amish typically don't care about that, because they're not typically in the market for the kinds of goods and services offered by such businesses. In contrast, someone who is happy to consume modern technology accept AI for arbitrary reasons seems like someone who is making interacting with society unnecessarily complicated and difficult.
>Or that his buggy is too slow for the roads (not highways), etc.
Well, as you've alluded to, if we deem that their beliefs would end up causing a significant enough issue to society, then their beliefs don't get to override the rules of society. Amish people are free to use buggies where appropriate because it's not a problem. They are not allowed to use buggies on highways because it would be a safety issue.
Regardless, they're not protected because of their beliefs. They're just operating within the rules of society. You don't have to be Amish to legally ride a buggy on the side of a road. These aren't special protections carved out for Amish people. Which, again, is the point of this discussion:
You stated "We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice," and I'm asking, "Protect them from what, exactly?"
"Exclusion from society" or being "the object of anger at "those darn Luddites"" are not things which laws can generally help with. Anti-AI people are free to not use AI, be vocal about their opposition to AI, and even (try to) exclude those who use AI from society or make them the object of anger with regards to AI usage. All of that is fair. It works both ways. None of it is dictated by law.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/2rjmnla9huwvklr/Last_Day.pdf/...
That’s inclusive of have-nots too, alongside the aforementioned no-thank-yous.
The laws are not against users! Use it as you wish! That doesn't entitle you to hate and punish those who prefer to live without it; people who have been around much longer than you.
Here's a clear example of what I mean: suppose life becomes significantly automated due to AI, but 10% of the country is made up of those darn Luddites from the 1500's who are clogging our streets with their horse carriages, still require physical mail instead of cleaner and cheaper digital communication, etc, etc.... let's pass laws to exert a greater tax on them for the damaging effects their backwards and outdated thinking are having on our global utopia!
In case someone gets offended, I'm actually an admirer of the Amish. I'm just painting a picture.
Hell they might end up one of the largest factions in the US because they still have decent birthrates unlike every other demograph.
The alternative is civil uprising and violence, the same as many other demographs and groups of people throughout history have caused because their government and society decided to ignore their demands.
As long as you enjoy your freedom the exact same way as everyone else
Which is actually much more dangerous.