I get the good intentions, but I don't like that the restrictions may be too broad and may hinder useful innovation.
For example: I once got trapped against the door in a building with a fire alert. The door was badge controlled and a several panicked people were pressing me against the door. I would loved a surveillance system to detect scared people and decide to unlock the doors automatically in an emergency.
We should punish bad usages, not ban broad categories just because politicians lack creativity.
You don't necessarily need AI to create a door that opens during a fire alert. You could simply make it so that the door is no longer badge controlled if a fire alert goes off.
Sure, it's possible someone might exploit this by creating a fake fire alert to open the door, but they could also trick the AI you suggested by using a fake panicked expression, maybe get some friends in on the prank.
Kind of a segue into why I think AI hype and crypto hype are uncannily similar. You could argue that blockchains have a lot of potential uses, it's just that we already have some kind of legacy technology that works fine and is usually much cheaper. In much the same way, I'd say 90% of people are using LLMs as search engines, albeit search engines that are more expensive and return strange results.
Anyway, point being, 99% of the applications one could imagine getting sniped by this law probably can probably be implemented using alternative, non-AI technologies.
For example: I once got trapped against the door in a building with a fire alert. The door was badge controlled and a several panicked people were pressing me against the door. I would loved a surveillance system to detect scared people and decide to unlock the doors automatically in an emergency.
We should punish bad usages, not ban broad categories just because politicians lack creativity.