> We have to stop before it’s too late
What -- exactly -- would this mean? Legislation to prevent AI? Prevent commercialized AI? Believe it or not, that actually sounds dystopian to me. A society that's so afraid of the technology it's created that it would hide from it? What do we think of human societies that acknowledge modern technology but decide to only rely on technology from ~100-200 years ago? Why was that technology acceptable? Should we halt the ongoing AI research? Destroy computation devices used to execute AI algorithms?
If the US decided to ban AI, could they expect a cooperative ban from other countries? If any one country decided not to cooperate, they would likely get a huge financial benefit.
Of course: AI will come with downsides -- significant ones. But I think it'll be a net improvement. Like most of human history, big technological advances were disruptive and some have caused significant harms.
> Writers? Severely cut down, maybe two main writers.
This also means that the existing talented writers can produce more entertainment than they would on their own. What if this means that the most talented writers can succeed more than they would have without new technology? Is that a benefit or a drawback? What if this means that mediocre writers can succeed more than they would have without new technology? Is that a benefit or a drawback?
> We just won’t need any employees.
"Employees" seems like a relatively recent concept in human history. Maybe we don't want to be or have employees anyways?