The Ethics of "Precrime" in AI2 min read·Just now--We're Punishing Capabilities, Not OutcomesAI Generated by the Author using ChatGPT4oFrontier AI regulation is evolving — but not into protection.Into prediction. Into punishment-before-crime.The concept of Responsible Scaling Policies (RSPs), as used like a trophy by companies like Anthropic, sounds benign. Smart. Safe.But under the hood, something weirder is taking root: the idea that we can forecast catastrophe, and legislate against it in advance.Not for what AI has done — but what it might do.That flips our whole moral logic. We’re no longer waiting for harm to occur. We’re codifying suspicion into governance.We’re treating potential as peril.Capability as culpability.It’s safety as simulation. Security as story (or content, for some.)AI Generated by the Author using ChatGPT4oTo be clear: this is not a call for regulatory nihilism.AI is powerful. Risks are real.But we should be deeply uneasy when our policies start to resemble predictive policing — not for humans, but for machines.Read Anthropic’s full post:The Case for Targeted RegulationWe need safety. But we also need clarity:Regulating for what could happen is not the same as responding to what has.Otherwise, we risk building a future that feels less like science , and more like science fiction.Tom Cruise and Samantha Morton in “Minority Report” (2002). DIRECTOR: Steven Spielberg.If this stirred something in you , good.That means you’re still capable of doubt. Of defense.Of seeing the line before it’s erased.Share it. Question it. Rage against it. Ignore it. And if you’re building, speak now: before the frameworks decide what’s allowed to exist. ;)