I would say of the list of examples, your claim is obviously and thoroughly false.
Geoengineering: the warming has not been sufficiently bad to have a business case yet. Increase in this is increasing as it becomes less and less likely the warming can be controlled by restricting emissions.
CFCs: ban widely ignored especially in China when money is to be made. Alternatives not significantly less capable or more expensive.
Nanotech: ??? Heavy research into this, I know of zero restrictions. It doesn’t work because it’s too hard (for humans) to solve
GMO humans: minimal gain for doing this, very risky. No economic gain.
Scientific Studies : this is a net bad that this is banned No challenge trials : this is a net bad that this is banned
Recreational drug dev : false, see various synthetic marijuanas. Deved mostly in China GMOs: flat false, it’s not relevant to the fate of Europe if they ban AI dev. Just impoverishes them in the short term and they get no say in the long term
Atomic Gardening: this method is obsolete and we still use plants developed this way Nuclear Power: it’s too expensive, heavy use by all superpowers Nukes for construction: how often is the radioactive crater useful? Fracking: superpowers all do it... Weapons: superpowers use them all…
Mostly this is a list of behaviors that weakcountries refuse to engage in, and their inevitable defeat is prevented by shared nuclear arsenals or being too poor to be worth invading.
Banning AI capabilities would de facto be a country signing away any future sovereignty it might have.
(because in futures with aligned AIs, that simply means they are aligned with human intentionality. Any useful tool AIs will still act in a hostile manner when directed, including uses to plan and execute military attacks. In futures with AI takeovers the AIs are aligned with themselves. Either future, the country without AI is an easy victim)
I would say of the list of examples, your claim is obviously and thoroughly false.
Geoengineering: the warming has not been sufficiently bad to have a business case yet. Increase in this is increasing as it becomes less and less likely the warming can be controlled by restricting emissions.
CFCs: ban widely ignored especially in China when money is to be made. Alternatives not significantly less capable or more expensive.
Nanotech: ??? Heavy research into this, I know of zero restrictions. It doesn’t work because it’s too hard (for humans) to solve
GMO humans: minimal gain for doing this, very risky. No economic gain.
Scientific Studies : this is a net bad that this is banned
No challenge trials : this is a net bad that this is banned
Recreational drug dev : false, see various synthetic marijuanas. Deved mostly in China
GMOs: flat false, it’s not relevant to the fate of Europe if they ban AI dev. Just impoverishes them in the short term and they get no say in the long term
Atomic Gardening: this method is obsolete and we still use plants developed this way
Nuclear Power: it’s too expensive, heavy use by all superpowers
Nukes for construction: how often is the radioactive crater useful?
Fracking: superpowers all do it...
Weapons: superpowers use them all…
Mostly this is a list of behaviors that weak countries refuse to engage in, and their inevitable defeat is prevented by shared nuclear arsenals or being too poor to be worth invading.
Banning AI capabilities would de facto be a country signing away any future sovereignty it might have.
(because in futures with aligned AIs, that simply means they are aligned with human intentionality. Any useful tool AIs will still act in a hostile manner when directed, including uses to plan and execute military attacks. In futures with AI takeovers the AIs are aligned with themselves. Either future, the country without AI is an easy victim)