Where this was said
Every AI Risk Scenario Is Already Illegal — So Why New Laws?
At 17:43 · chapter starts 16:40
The logical conclusion of Sinofsky's argument arrives here, sharp and direct: not 90%, not most — 100% of the risk scenarios people use to justify new AI regulation are already illegal under existing law [1] — Steven Sinofsky "New AI-specific laws are almost entirely redundant. Non-consensual nudity is already illegal. Discriminatory lending is already illegal. Da…" 16:40 . Senator Warner's four-point AI plan addresses non-consensual nudity? Already illegal — you can't show nude pictures of children and you can't show them to children. States passing laws saying AI can't be registered as an attorney? Already impossible — AI can't take the bar exam, sign a license, or register for college under any existing framework. The laws don't need to be rewritten; they need to be applied. Sinofsky acknowledges that this framing is uncomfortable for legislators, because their entire professional identity is built around creating rules. But his point isn't that government should be idle — it's that the first move should be verification, not legislation. Do the existing statutes actually cover these scenarios? And if they don't, is that because of a real gap in the law, or just imprecise wording that needs updating?
New AI-specific laws are almost entirely redundant. Non-consensual nudity is already illegal. Discriminatory lending is already illegal. Dangerous drugs are already illegal. Even AI practicing medicine without a license is already impossible under existing licensing law. The only thing new regulation does is give companies a way to kneecap competitors.
Sinofsky claims that every scenario critics identify as an AI risk — non-consensual nudity, discriminatory lending, dangerous drugs — already has a law against it.
One state passed a law saying AI can't be registered as an attorney — but this is already impossible under existing licensing law, illustrating how redundant new AI rules often are.
AT&T, a private company, became effectively the United States national phone company by promising universal telephone access to every address in America in exchange for a government-sanctioned monopoly.
Before writing new AI laws, governments should first audit whether the roughly 2 million laws already on the books apply to AI use cases — covering CSAM, spam, surveillance, and more.
Before writing a single new AI law, governments should audit the 2 million laws already on the books and ask: do they apply to AI? This is what happened with EVs — engineers had to verify that car safety rules designed for combustion engines still made sense for batteries. Do the same for AI, and you'll know what's actually missing.
