본 토론은 인공일반지능(AGI)이 핵심 기반시설로서 규제되어야 한다고 본다.
Systems capable of recursive self-improvement create asymmetric risk profiles comparable to nuclear material. Critical-infrastructure designation provides the legal scaffolding for audit, licensing, and coordinated response.
The race-to-deploy logic of frontier labs externalizes catastrophic costs onto the public. Treating AGI like the power grid lets us internalize those costs through conventional safety regimes — testing, certification, and accountability.
Aviation, pharmaceuticals, and nuclear power were once frontier industries regulated after harm. Designating AGI now is a chance to regulate before — a learned lesson, not a novel imposition.
If AGI will reshape labor, speech, and security, then its trajectory cannot belong to a handful of private entities. Critical-infrastructure status is the constitutional path back to public consent.
Critical-infrastructure regimes raise compliance costs that only well-capitalized firms can absorb. The result is regulatory capture: a moat for the very labs the regulation was meant to constrain.
There is no agreed technical definition of general intelligence. Writing law around an undefined capability invites either toothless statutes or sweeping overreach into ordinary software.
Harms caused by AI systems are not exempt from negligence, fraud, or product-liability doctrine. New designations risk creating contradictory duties without new protections.
Critical-infrastructure rules require pre-approval. Most breakthroughs in machine learning came from unsanctioned exploration. Cementing gatekeepers will export the frontier to less accountable jurisdictions.
"Markets cannot price civilizational externalities."
"Critical-infrastructure rules raise costs only incumbents can absorb."
Both sides concede a market failure exists; they disagree only on whether the cure is worse than the disease. The question collapses to: does designation accelerate or foreclose competition?
"Aviation and nuclear power are the precedent."
"AGI has no agreed technical definition to regulate."
The analogy holds only if "AGI" can be operationalized — by compute thresholds, capability evals, or deployment scope. Neither side has yet picked a definition they would defend in cross.
After hearing both sides, where do you stand? 토론을 들으신 후, 어느 쪽에 서시겠습니까?