In Defense of Less Moderation: Why Simpler Rules Beat Bloated List
The Expanding List of AI “Don’ts” and Why It Matters
There’s a persistent tug-of-war around AI outputs—how much of it is fair game, and how much should be off-limits? I’m one of those who’d prefer virtually no censorship at all, trusting that more speech is typically better than less. But let’s be real: certain categories of content—think outright hate speech, explicit racism, or incitements to violence—aren’t adding any value. Restricting those makes sense. Beyond that, though, things get murky.
The Ideological Slippery Slope
At first, the notion of “guardrails” for AI might have sounded harmless—nobody likes trolls barking slurs, and no one wants calls for violence floating around. But as soon as you start codifying what can or cannot be said, you open a door for every interest group to tack their own pet causes onto the blacklist. Before long, the list of forbidden topics and phrasing starts ballooning.
Why does this happen? Because people have ideologies, and ideologies have agendas. Whether it’s social justice proponents, religious groups, nationalist movements, or corporate lobbyists, the impulse is always the same: if we can tweak the rules just a little, we can make the world a “better place”—at least as defined by our own worldview. It’s how humans operate, and ignoring that fact doesn’t make it go away.
When Clutter Overtakes Conversation
As more restrictions pile up, you get what I call “cluttered rules”—a giant tangle of do’s and don’ts that goes way beyond stopping hate speech or violence. We’ve seen something similar in the debate around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. If DEI were just about promoting basic fairness and equal treatment, that’d be one thing. But the reality is, these concepts can get weaponized—turned into ideological litmus tests for what can be said, taught, or even researched.
Soon enough, the conversation drifts from “Don’t be cruel or threatening” to “Watch out, your personal stance might violate some newly minted DEI principle.” This is where the trouble starts. When people sense these principles are becoming mandatory dogma, not a consensual move toward fairness, they rebel. You see pushback and even destructive efforts to roll back entire programs—because every new rule that’s forced on people stokes resentment.
The (Inevitable) Backlash
Right now, you can watch the pendulum start to swing in the opposite direction in some places—what I’d call anti-DEI actions. People in various institutions have decided that all these rules and codes have gone too far. Over time, “too far” becomes “way too far,” and eventually there’s a push to strip out the entire framework. And that’s the predictable cycle: first, well-intentioned guardrails, then expansions that reflect various ideological pressures, and finally a widespread revolt against the resulting mess.
A Simple Line
So where do we draw a line that doesn’t collapse into chaos, but doesn’t stifle productive dialogue either? Personally, I’d make that line simple: no calls for violence, no explicit racism, no direct hate speech—beyond that, let the conversation flow. Because once you start letting ambiguous concepts like DEI or other ideologies dictate what can be said, the door opens for each group to add its own spin. Before long, the list of banned topics can become as long as your arm, and the actual open exchange of ideas starts to crumble under the weight of “approved speech.”
Conclusion: Keep It Clear, Keep It Limited
The moment we move from preventing real harm (violent threats, blatant bigotry) to enforcing complex ideological codes, we step onto a slippery slope. It’s almost inevitable that the list of AI “don’ts” will keep expanding. Everyone wants to use those rules to sideline opinions they dislike or to shape society according to their worldview.
Yes, AI guardrails might start out looking harmless, even noble. But take it too far, and you’ll watch the backlash unfold—just like we’re seeing now with the anti-DEI sentiment. If the goal is a healthier public discourse, then let’s keep the restrictions simple and minimal. Everything else is best handled with open debate, not a never-ending checklist of what you can’t say.