"Your position is that everybody should do all the checks individually"

Straw man. You do say checking should be done (& considered sufficient) by unaccountable government departments. The contrapositive is not everyone doing it from first principles. For example, one can delegate - voluntarily.

This is getting really off topic, but ...

"Without public bailouts, most of the major banks in the western world would have folded because the risks they took"

You do realize that there is a possible causal link between the general existence and tradition of public bailouts and a potential-recipient taking on excess risk, right?

"You might as well suggest ..."

No, that is such a bad analogy.

"a handful of minor fender-benders, light damage, no injuries, so far caused by human error and inattention"

In case any of those were done by human co-drivers in automated vehicles, this does not exonerate the automation from some share of responsibility. For example, if the presence or habitual use of the automation makes it more likely for the co-driver to become inattentive, it's partly to blame.

"Not acceptance of everyone, but enforcement against everyone." ... or perhaps it would result in enough outrage that laws that forbid harmless practices would be undone, resulting in enforcement against no-one.

A good scary deterrent is part of prevention.

"reduce the burden of due dilligence on the individual customer"

That's an interesting angle ... "regulation is good because the emptor doesn't have to caveat".

It infantilizes people, especially in this day & age of easily available information, and the presence of free-market alternatives like UL, ISO, etc. Its trustworthiness is a lie, since it provides no proof that it hits any minimum of the cost/benefit curves of its mandates, and bears zero liability for its mistakes.

It's refreshing to see people starting to challenge the notion that naturally a government can regulate whatever it wants. Calling it out when nonsensical - putting the burden of proof of necessity/wisdom on those in power - that's simply awesome.

"Your phone carrier MUST know"

Yes, but that's not the same as saying the _police_ should know.

"Worse, it threatens to poison a nascent willingness"

[citation needed]

"Why is society seen as a ends, rather than a means by which we can enjoy higher productivity, safety and personal wealth."

Why, that is but one aspect of collectivism (or its fashionable synonyms). The state is your co-parent, the state is your provider, the state is what defines your contributions...

Madness.

They offered no "data", only slurs that the work done by mainstream engineers is not as "relevant to societal needs", that "better engineering for all" is to be provided by female engineers.

A delicious double entendre indeed - and if you read closely the bio of the writer, you see something similar too. Noun phrase or gerund?

"Lina Nilsson is the innovation director at the Blum Center for Developing Economies at the University of California, Berkeley."

So step 1, nationalize service industries by claiming the private (free) sector can't do it; step 2, penalize the (free) individuals requiring service claiming they're using too much.

It's hard to conclude that seeking power & control wasn't behind #1 and #2 all along.

No matter what this or that expert panel wishes were true about AI research, AI work can be done in the privacy of one's own top secret lair (bedroom), so bad guys will do with it what they want to. So might as well assume that will happen, and work out how to win the arms race.