Look at automated trading in 2010: a flash crash wiped a trillion dollars in minutes because algorithms were correlated and nobody had skin in the game. That's the fragility we're inviting. When AI replicates artists, doctors, lawyers, and reasoners, we concentrate judgment into systems that fail together and can't be held accountable. Governments shouldn't just nudge; they should ban AI from replacing core human roles and heavily regulate deployment. Yes, innovation matters, but antifragility comes from distributed human judgment, not a brittle monoculture. If your argument only works in calm times, it breaks under stress. That's not progress.

Who says a ban must be perfect to be worth having? Sure, someone abroad builds it. But that's the skin-in-the-game problem, not a reason to shrug. An imperfect speed limit still shifts liability and behavior. Your labor and copyright fixes assume the damage arrives slowly. It doesn't. The fragility is letting every industry lean on one correlated, unaccountable layer and waiting for the crash. Imperfect rules that keep judgment distributed beat your clean theory that only works in calm times.

You're right that you can't stop math. But we're not banning math. We're banning its use to replace human judgment in roles where accountability matters. Your crypto analogy falls apart there, because encryption never tried to be a doctor or a judge. The fragility is the correlated layer: one model fails, thousands of decisions fail together, and nobody has skin in the game. Your labor and copyright fixes are too slow and too narrow. They don't stop the crash. An imperfect ban on replication keeps judgment distributed, and that's antifragile.