Generally, with big issues, more voices are better than fewer.
Historically, states’ rights are of preeminent importance in American law and governance.
A ten-year ‘moratorium’ would allow actors at the top to seize some sort of technical or intellectual monopoly that would be very difficult to change once established.
The people who would be in position to do that are a transient group of individuals, unelected, unvetted, mostly unknown to the public.
How could allowing them alone to determine our AI future be better than allowing more voices, more jurisdictions, more transparency, more discussion and more thought?
Based on that line of reasoning, it would be better for our civilization to not do the moratorium. ABN
American Buddhist Net 