Regulators can't stop AI—they can only slow down innovation.

Daily Debate #563: "Regulators can't stop AI—they can only slow down innovation.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Sam Harris.

What do you mean by stop?

You're dodging the real question. "Stop" means regulators can't prevent AI development entirely—they can only impose costs, delays, timelines. So which is it: can they actually halt progress, or just tax it?

Well, this is implying that AI is innovative

Exactly—AI demonstrably is innovative. The real question you're avoiding: if regulators can't stop innovation itself, why assume they *can* stop AI specifically? What makes AI uniquely unstoppable compared to nuclear tech or pharmaceuticals?

AI isn’t innovative

Now you're arguing against your own side. You assigned yourself AGAINST the motion—regulators can't stop AI. But "AI isn't innovative" means regulators *could* stop it. You just switched to my position. Which is it?