Is he going senile since he wants to play in the streets again?

We have an easy peasy solution to that.
We will just make it illegal for burglars to look under the mat.
And if they do look under the mat, we will also make it illegal fro them to take the key.
Finally we will also make it illegal for burglars to use the key.

See there an absolutely bullet proof solution, so why does the tech industry continue to claim this is a bad idea?
As a politician I simply can’t understand why they are so contrary to this idea that will increase safety for everybody!!

/s (just in case)

The basic idea that there are abiously laws for humans too is fine.
But these are misunderstood, and are designed to put blame on users instead of the AI and the companies behind.

It is well known that Asimov’s laws were flawed.

What? No they aren’t!! Those laws are 70 years old, and are surprisingly well designed, and the concept still stands, which is why they are still so famous! The claim that they are flawed is a very bad start, and very noticeably the author does not describe in what way they are flawed, and also no, Asimov’s stories do NOT reveal flaws in these laws, on the contrary they demonstrate the necessity of them. Asimov’s stories demonstrate that responsibility of AI is a requirement, otherwise innocent people or even humanity will get hurt.

The inverse laws the article suggest:

Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems.

This is mostly irrelevant. Judgement must be based on the facts, just like with any other type of professional advice.
I feel like 2+2 should be five, is essentially nonsensical, but still it is impossible to not have human users reflect on their own emotions when being advised, whether it’s a human, a book or an AI.

Humans must not blindly trust the output of AI systems.

This should seem obvious. But it completely removes the responsibility from the AI, and fails to account for the human factor that if the AI was right 9 times in a row, it is very human to think it is probably also right the 10th time, exactly as with a human advisor. You can’t make it a requirement of humans to automatically be skeptical of advice put forward with sophisticated language and argumentation that seems identical to a qualified authority and expert. And then require that we make the research manually afterwards. What would the point of the AI be then? We might as well simply skip the AI step altogether by that logic. Which might actually not be such a bad idea. 😋

Humans must remain fully responsible and accountable for consequences arising from the use of AI systems.

This sounds like blame is fully on the user, not the company responsible for the AI.
When services are offered to non specialists and ordinary people, the company behind the “product” must have responsibility of the quality of the product for the services they offer, exactly like with other products. Guidance to a teenager to commit suicide cannot be blamed on the user, and guidance to commit acts of terror makes the AI an accomplice, and the company behind such an AI must be exactly as responsible for the act as if a human had been an accomplice.

This looks like a whitewash of AI responsibility, and this is exactly the last thing we would want to become a legal norm, a world of irresponsible AI where the users carry all the blame.
Guidelines maybe, laws no.

Edit:

I’m surprised this is downvoted, since when did Lemmy become pro irresponsible AI? Laying the burden of responsibility on ordinary users instead of the companies behind!
Absolutely “don’t be stupid” is what we should all strive for, but you simply can’t make it a “law” that people must stop being stupid. An AI giving advice that obviously harm people should absolutely be illegal, exactly as Asimov suggested in his 3 laws of Robotics.