There is one important rule in any regulation that is almost impossible to implement in modern world: "Rules should be created by specialists". AI-related rules should be formulated not by politicians, not economists, not artists or YouTube influencers but by IT engineers. And I guarantee that those "politicians, economists, artists and YouTube influencers" would be strongly dissatisfied with engineers' decisions.

Better leave some area unregulated than use rules made by self-proclaimed important people who know nothing about regulated area.

I didn't expect this big of an article, which is valuable, but the part that caught my attention was something I was hoping to find somewhere in it:

I also came across the following rather new research: Big AI's Regulatory Capture: Mapping Industry Interference and Government Complicity... They took a much more thorough look at the same problem, focusing specifically on Big Tech narratives around the regulation of AI, and took a much more precise approach. They examined the growing influence of AI and how this has led to corporate control over its regulation. Their study identifies 27 ways in which companies influence AI regulations, often using narratives such as 'regulation stifles innovation' to justify their actions. The most common tactics involve framing debates and bending laws. The authors warn that this regulatory capture constitutes an emergency and suggest ways to resist it. However, what shocked me most was how much their findings overlapped with those [Big Food tactics] presented above.

"Government adopting industry framing" is a #1 method & tying two others, including "Disregarding existing laws". Old fashioned lobbying happens 50% less than any of the top three. And less than misinterpreting laws, less than "other elusion".

AI;DR