大多数人认为政府会迅速采取立法行动保护创作者权益，但作者指出英国政府实际上倾向于自愿原则而非硬性监管。这一观点挑战了公众对政府会在AI版权问题上采取强硬措施的预期，揭示了政策制定的实际倾向。

大多数人认为英国政府在AI监管方面会采取强硬立场保护创作者权益。但作者指出政府实际上倾向于亲创新、行业主导的方法，优先考虑自愿原则而非硬性监管。这一发现与公众对政府保护创作者的期望形成鲜明对比，揭示了政策现实与公众认知之间的差距。

This is the weird part of these articles … he has just made a cast-iron argument for regulation and then says "I'm not sure"!!

That first sentence alone is enough for the case. Why? Because he doesn't need to think for sure that AI is like that power plant ... he only needs to think there is a (even small) probability that AI is like that power plant. If he thinks that it could be even a bit like that power plant then we shouldn't build it. And, finally, in saying "I'm not sure" he has already acknowledged that there is some probability that AI is like the power plant (otherwise he would say: AI is definitely safe).

Strictly, this is combining the existence of the risk with the "ruin" aspect of this risk: one nuclear power blowing up is terrible but would not wipe out the whole human race (and all other species). A "bad" AI quite easily could (malevolent by our standards or simply misdirected).

All you need in these arguments is a simple admission of some probability of ruin. And almost everyone seems to agree on that.

Then it is a slam dunk to regulate strongly and immediately.

Politically, people have been pushing deregulation for decades, but we have regulations for a reason, as these questions illustrate.