Meta: "AI should be subject to reasonable regulations" cannot be claimed as the 'true Pro' or 'true Anti' position.

A recurring issue in these discussions is that both sides claim the "reasonable regulation" middle ground as the default pro- or anti-AI position. If that's all either label means, then the distinction becomes meaningless.

Being pro or anti implies a meaningful disagreement. Yet most "antis" simply don't want a chill cast on their spaces and industries, and most "pros" simply want to remain respected while using the tech. Defining anti or pro as inherently unreasonable forms of harassment against some enlightened middle reduces both labels to fringe nuisances that few people actually represent. We all think harassment is bad.

The real disagreement is whether AI should play a larger role in society, and where and when that role is appropriate.

A meaningful definition would be:

• Anti-AI: bans AI in their own spaces and advocates banning or shunning it from their industry.
• Pro-AI: promotes AI in their own spaces and advocates its broader adoption in their industry.

These are meaningfully opposing positions. Heck, someone can be pro in one field and anti in another, or neither. But if your position is simply "reasonable regulation," you're describing a moderate stance, not claiming ownership of a polarized label.