You are likely right that in the end regulation won't make much of a differenc. Indeed, there is too much incentive to cheat for individuals -- or for power-centers to accumulate more power by being the only ones to use something.

The proposal in the article also suggests outlawing open source software and data related to AI. Such laws may end any possible checks and balances on government, if governments -- or large corporations symbiotic with governments -- ultimately are the only one allowed to shape AI, and not individuals or small groups.

So what might make a difference? A broad perspective shift across the world towards "A Newer Way of Thinking" like Donald Pet, Buckminster Fuller, Albert Einstein, Lewis Mumford, Ursula K. Le Guin and others have suggested may make a difference. Our path coming out of any AI singularity may have a lot to do with our moral path going into one.

Donald Pet's work:
https://peace.academy/
"Donald Pet Releases Masterpiece: "Albert Einstein's Vision: A Clear Path to Global Harmony Through A Newer Way Of Thinking (ANWOT)"
https://www.webwire.com/ViewPr...
"Peace Academy By Donald Pet Video Trailer"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Also: "Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment. Humanity is in a final exam as to whether or not it might qualify for continuance in the Universe. (Utopia Or Oblivion: The Prospects for Humanity, R. Buckminster Fuller)"

As my sig suggests, the biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity. If we use AI from a scarcity-minded perspective emphasizing competition and self-centeredness instead of cooperation and compassion, we probably will doom ourselves. If we collectively use AI from an abundance perspective, we may still doom ourselves from excessive wealth concentration or rogue AI, but at least there is some hope that we might do better than that. See Marshall Brain's Manna story for two paths forward or see James P. Hogan's novels Two Faces of Tomorrow and Voyage from Yesteryear.

More by me on scarcity vs abundance thinking related to militarism but it applies to commerce as well since it is all intertwined in our society:
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
"There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
      The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream."

Just noticed your reply, AC. These are great questions!

One the first, sci-fi shows several different models, but yes, cultural transitions can be awkward. I think Jams P. Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear is a good depiction of how long people in power can resists the obvious and attempt to create artificial scarcity to prop up their social position (until there may be overwhelming pushback from lots of people in a Ghandi-esque way). Marshall Brain's Manna also explore that idea, but in that case there is a clear divide of those who own a share of a corporation that meets all their needs and many of their wants on a sort-of basic income basis (with the equivalent of replicator ration units / credits like in Star Trek Voyager). There can be a place for a "Kanban"-like system to signal need (even just emails or other messages). And universal basic income and varying prices (like in Marshall Brain's Manna) is a way to ration some things. Lawrence Lessig in Code 2.0 talks about how human behavior can be shaped by norms, rules, prices, and architecture, and I might expect all four of those would be adapted to support a post-scarcity worldview (including limits as needed, just like when people first got running water in cities they would leave the tap open like fountains and streams they were used to, but eventually it became a norm to turn the water on when you wanted it and off when you didn't.

On your second point, indeed it is true that abundances can create complementary scarcities. I wrote an essay on that in 2013:
https://pdfernhout.net/how-abu...
"It has been pointed out that abundances of some things can create complementary scarcities. For example, too many emails means too little attention for each one. Too many snowmobiles may mean too little quiet woods. Too many fusion power systems may mean too much heat pollution everywhere. An abundance of nanobots or biotechnology may mean no one can walk unprotected ever outside of air tight dwellings, making for a scarcity of convenience and nature. And abundance of cheap digital cameras and voice recorders makes for a scarcity of privacy, as does an abundance of computers to analyze and organize all that digital information. And so on. ...
      As for social inequality specifically from abundance, yes, it is true that some people may use the powers of abundance within any socio-political-economic system to consolidate power. Marshall Brain suggests that has been happening with automation, and it will only continue unless various structural changes are made (like a redistributive basic income, such as Social Security for all instead of just those over 65). ...
      There may be other ways that abundance creates problems too, no doubt, because it can connect to very specialized divisions of labor including bureaucracies, which, as systems, to put it charitably are "amoral". Organizations can behave in amoral ways regardless of the morality of the people who are the components who make up the system, since any "failing" component that does not perform to standards will just be replaced (Langdon Winner at RPI wrote about this in "Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought"). Yes, people can drag their feet (examples abound like in WWII Germany), but the system will still trundle along based on its own emergent organizational dynamics to the bitter end unless it meets some other system that stops it or it hits some sort of natural limit as it burns like a fire through that which sustains it (including the people that compose it). So, we have to be careful what values our systems embody, because the systems will serve as amplifiers of those values. ...
      Another way that abundances can create scarcities of self-control is "The Pleasure Trap", "Supernormal Stimuli", "The Acceleration of Addiction", and "The Tyranny of Choice" all resulting in "Ego Depletion". ...
      Hopefully we can use what computing power we have individually and collectively to think up and implement ways of dealing with all these challenges, like I suggest here:
"The need for FOSS intelligence tools for sensemaking etc." ..."

So, not a great answer to a great question, but remember that a lot of people will have a lot of free time to help deal with such issues. And also eventually at least the commercial motive to create problems for personal profit will recede. They might even have time to clean up the scientific literature from profit-oriented deceptions like ones I cite here related to peer review in general and also medical science in particular:
https://pdfernhout.net/to-jame...

The world wide web has billions of web pages and we now have search engines (and RSS feed readers) to help navigate those, as do directories of various sorts including Wikipedia. Granted, all search engines and directories may have their biases. But as computing capacity goes way beyond what is needed to index and store billions of web pages locally, people can easily get their basic informational needs met locally.

It is maybe increasingly hard to remember what the information world was like in the 1970s when I was a teenager -- where a dialup phone call to my high school's timeshare computer network cost me US$10 per hour (more like US$30 now) and there was little there to do besides playing a few text-based computer games, chatting with a handful of other users online, or writing a program file or maybe reading a very little online documentation or other text files. It was really hard to get information about any specific topic you might have an interest without physically traveling to a public library, and time there was limited, and so was the selection of books and resources to maybe a few tens of thousands of items (in a larger town library). Especially for any teenager before college, was difficult to get any information beyond what you were provided by someone else for their purposes (such as in school textbooks).

Now I could in theory store the equivalent of a town library of 10,000 books on a flash drive with a full text index. On a 20TB hard drive available for US$350, one can in theory store millions of books: https://forums.tomshardware.co...

Or essentially all of Wikipedia (without media):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Still not quite a personal copy of the Library of Congress though:
https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2009...

But still an enormous change from the 1970s. And more than enough to be able to learn the basics of almost any academic or technical subject at very little cost -- assuming that the information is reasonably complete and unbiased (which is may not be, to your point). And indexing all that information by at least keyword is now very easy with tools like Lucene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, yes, spam is a problem. It greatly damaged email and contributed to the rise of walled garden social networks (which eventually had their own spam problems including from outrage-stoking algorithmic feeds provides by the social media companies). But, email still works. There are various groups of people who help deal with email spam including by creating new standards and encouraging people to use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In the book "Midas World" there is a story of people who help individuals who create huge problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""The Man Who Ate the World" (originally published in Galaxy in 1956). Anderson Trumie had a scarring experience in his childhood, before Morey Fry changed the world. All Anderson wanted was a teddy bear, but his parents' lifestyle of frantic consumption did not allow him to have one. As an adult, he is a compulsive consumer. He has taken over North Guardian Island and is putting a burden on the local infrastructure. A psychist, Roger Garrick, with the help of Kathryn Pender, finds a way to heal Anderson and end his exorbitant consumption."

For an analogy today, where people may die from for-profit malware distributors -- and eventually there may be social processes (including law enforcement and international cooperation) to reduce that:
"Ransomware Attack Hampers Prescription Drug Sales at 90% of US Pharmacies (msn.com)"
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

So yes, there will be problems. But there will also be enormous capacity to deal with problems. And there will be (hopefully) an enormous cultural shift to preempt problems -- like, say, in the USA not many people would probably want to marry a human trafficker today compared to the early 1800s when slaveholding was a normal and accepted and profitable part of US culture and has since been greatly reduced in its most extreme forms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Human trafficking is condemned as a violation of human rights by international conventions, but legal protection varies globally. The practice has millions of victims around the world. ... According to scholar Kevin Bales, author of Disposable People (2004), estimates that as many as 27 million people are in "modern-day slavery" across the globe."

tl;dr: I can't disagree with your core point that there are challenges and lots of messiness in social change -- but thankfully there are billions of people who could provide solutions, since, as Julian Simon pointed out, the human imagination is the ultimate resource.
https://www.pop.org/overpopula...
http://www.juliansimon.com/wri...

All five are types of transactions various people engage in. Resources don't always have to come from exchange transactions. They can come from other types of transactions (with theft transactions hopefully minimized, where theft tends to happen when the social contract seems to break down for some people and leads to increasing security costs for everyone).

So one can ask how subsistence, gift, and planned transactions can support FOSS? Rather than emphasize only funding via, as you point out, monopoly rent-seeking as a form of artificial scarcity behind ever-larger parts of the exchange economy (and other types of dysfunctions).

A video I made on those types of transactions:
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

Also on that issue from a gift and planned perspective::
"An Open Letter to All Grantmakers and Donors On Copyright And Patent Policy In a Post-Scarcity Society"
https://pdfernhout.net/open-le...
"Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations."

Are you saying you have a good relationship with someone who has no respect for you?

Or do you have no respect for them? I suppose that might look like a "good" relationship from your perspective...

Perhaps those are 1000 million quantum bits (qubits)? And perhaps is just the memory used in KITT's main quantum processing cores, not actual medium or long-term storage?

https://www.technologyreview.c...
"Late last year [2022], IBM took the record for the largest quantum computing system with a processor that contained 433 quantum bits, or qubits, the fundamental building blocks of quantum information processing. Now, the company has set its sights on a much bigger target: a 100,000-qubit machine that it aims to build within 10 years. ... The idea is that the 100,000 qubits will work alongside the best "classical" supercomputers to achieve new breakthroughs in drug discovery, fertilizer production, battery performance, and a host of other applications."

If so, Knight Industries and KITT indeed were clearly decades ahead of even current commercial computing technology.
                                                                                                                      (-: ---#++-- :-)

Dang, that's my problem - I only didn't buy one of them! I guess I'll just have to keep paying my mortgage until the Vision II comes out.

You've got to wonder - since they've got a cord running down to a separate battery pack already, why didn't they just put all the heat and weight of the computer in the "battery pack" instead of the headset?

The only reason I can think of is that if it was in the "battery pack", then it wouldn't be terribly difficult to someday upgrade the computer without buying an entirely new expensive headset too.

I mean heck, it worked great with all the suckers that bought premium-screen iMacs over the years...

It I'm pretty sure she was fired for NOT doing the right thing - A.k.a. making sure her husband could either be trusted to overhear the privileged conversations, or couldn't hear them.

The fact that the felony was committed is pretty clear evidence that, one way or another, she has poor judgement.

Her husband is either a complete idiot, or knowingly implicated her in a felony without even mentioning it to her first.

Honestly, either way this is likely only the most recent and dramatic of a long chain of problems.

And while a spouse may be kind of difficult to replace, their value is only as high as the respect they bring to the relationship. Love alone may be great for dating, but marriage has always been a business relationship.

The extra scary part is that make it obvious that they don't actually believe their own religion.

If the act invokes the wrath of God, then why do we have to worry about it? Do they not trust God to be able to exact his own vengeance?

Or are they like chihuahuas running in a dog pack - utterly useless, but with an inferiority complex ten times their size that makes them try to start shit with anyone and everyone, while the real dogs are just chilling?

If the Right actually cared about kiddy-diddling, then the default punishment for rapist priests wouldn't be just reassigning them to another parish where nobody knows they're a kiddy-diddler. They'd be up in arms about that shit.

They only "care" about the children when it gives them an excuse to persecute a group they already don't like.

No they refused to prosecute because they had no evidence that he willfully retained classified documents. The willful part is what makes it a crime, accidentally taking some paperwork you shouldn't have happens.

Biden: I discovered I had these classified documents, handed them over, immediately searched for more, and invited the FBI to do the same. Exactly what you're supposed to do when you discover yourself in unauthorized possession of classified documents.

Trump: No I don't have any classified documents, and had my lawyer testify to that fact under oath. Oh, that unsecured room full of them? No, those are mine. You can't have them. And anyway I declassified them in my imagination without doing any of the paperwork required, so they're fine. You're confiscating them? That's theft! And yes you got them all. Oh, these? These are mine, and you can't have them.

One of those acts is not like the other.