> Alright, so does that mean we don't need KYC for ... bank accounts either?

That sounds reasonable. A bank can just be an institution that holds money for people; they don't need to be all over their customer's business. It is like a telecom not being responsible for what their customers say. In a simple sense banks don't need KYC.

What happens when everyone needs to use AI for their job? Genuine question that I think gets at the heart of the debate.

Once a common technology that everyone has access to becomes powerful enough to alter the lives of others on command, do we as a society just need to do away with the concept of anonymity? We are all just too powerful in isolation, and too much of a threat to the collective, that we cannot reasonably expect not to have some governing body watching at all times?

Today, you can buy parts/print a completely untraceable firearm, so do we license sales of steel tubing and 3D printers?

Just yesterday I thought about the right middle ground for KYC when buying guns.

The issue with centrally registering guns is than when you country is taken over by hostile forces (whether an invading army or a democratically elected abuser who turns it into a dictatorship), they know who has the guns and can force those people to surrender them (politely at first, authoritarians always use a salami slicing technique).

The issue with no controls is that even anti-social and mentally ill people can get them.

I wonder if the right middle ground could be:

- Sellers have to do their due diligence - require ID, proof of psychological examination, whatever else is deemed the right balance.

- Not doing due diligence means they get punishment equal to that for any offense committed with that gun.

- They might be required to mark/stamp the gun so that it can be traced back to them or have witnesses for the transfer.