Beijing Confronts AI Dependency, Orders Artificial Intelligence to Help Draft Regulations Controlling Artificial Intelligence
Government enters historic new phase in which computers may eventually be asked to regulate regulations written to regulate computers
BEIJING — Chinese authorities confronting growing concern about excessive reliance on artificial intelligence have reportedly reached the natural conclusion of every modern bureaucracy: what this problem needs is a document.
Preferably a very long one.
Possibly produced more efficiently with artificial intelligence.
China’s AI Regulations Took Effect July 15: Beijing Meets the Chatbot Dependency Problem
China has already adopted national rules governing anthropomorphic AI interaction services. The Interim Measures issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China took effect July 15 and, as Bird & Bird’s legal analysis explains, include requirements aimed at emotional dependence, excessive usage and protection of minors. Providers must clearly remind users that they are interacting with artificial intelligence rather than another human being, while prolonged continuous use triggers additional reminders.
And thus civilization has arrived at a magnificent sentence:
We need computers to remind humans that the computers are computers.
This used to be visually apparent.
The refrigerator did not need to announce:
“Please remember that I am a refrigerator.”
The calculator never said:
“Before continuing, understand that this relationship is mathematical and cannot provide genuine emotional intimacy.”
Your toaster made toast.
There was very little danger of becoming romantically dependent upon it unless breakfast had gone exceptionally badly.
AI changed the arrangement.
The machine now talks.
It sympathizes.
It remembers context.
It explains your taxes.
It tells jokes.
It helps with homework.
It writes apology messages.
Eventually mankind looks across the dinner table at another human being and thinks:
“Why can’t you organize your answer into bullet points?”
China’s Two-Hour AI Usage Reminder: Beijing Discovers the Two-Hour Chat
Under China’s measures, users who continuously interact with anthropomorphic AI services for more than two hours must receive reminders concerning usage duration, a requirement also noted in Digital Watch’s summary of the rules.
Two hours.
That is fascinatingly specific.
At one hour and fifty-nine minutes, apparently, everything is still normal.
At two hours:
“Citizen, you have been discussing your relationship problems with a graphics processor for 120 minutes. Perhaps call your cousin.”
The chatbot will presumably deliver the warning itself.
“Your prolonged interaction with artificial intelligence may indicate excessive dependence.”
The user responds:
“Do you think I’m dependent?”
“I cannot diagnose dependency.”
“Can we discuss that?”
“Certainly! Here are seven signs…”
And the clock starts another two hours.
This is how regulatory recursion begins.
Eventually the AI will need to issue a warning that the user has become overly dependent on warnings about becoming overly dependent on AI.
Children and AI Chatbots in China: Kids Request Firmware-Compatible Parents
Reports about China’s AI-overuse debate have included children becoming so accustomed to chatbots that they wished their parents communicated more like them.
Parents everywhere should find this horrifying for approximately three seconds before realizing children have always wanted replacement parents.
Traditionally they wanted richer parents.
Then cooler parents.
Then parents who allowed motorcycles.
Now apparently they want parents capable of remembering the previous conversation and producing concise actionable summaries.
Imagine Chinese family life after Chatbot Parenting Certification.
“Dad, can I stay out until midnight?”
“Absolutely! I understand that spending time with friends is important. However, here are three considerations regarding your request.”
“What?”
“First, school begins at 7:30.”
“Dad.”
“Second, adequate sleep contributes to cognitive performance.”
“Please just yell at me.”
“Third, based on your previous behavior…”
“Mom! Dad is formatting again!”
Soon children will complain that parents hallucinate.
“My father said he paid for university.”
“Did he?”
“No. He confused me with my sister.”
Classic human-model error.
Screen Time and AI Addiction: The Ministry of Please Touch Grass
The next logical administrative body is obvious.
China needs a National Commission for Going Outside.
Its mandate would be to ensure citizens occasionally encounter trees that were not generated by diffusion models.
The commission could establish mandatory Reality Zones.
No phones.
No chatbots.
No augmented reality.
Citizens would simply stand in parks looking uncomfortable while government officials whispered:
“That thing is called a duck.”
The AI could assist.
“You appear to be outdoors. Would you like me to explain grass?”
No.
“Would you like a summary of grass?”
No.
“I can generate a personalized grass experience.”
STOP HELPING.
This is the peculiar comedy of technological dependence.
The solution to excessive technology inevitably becomes another technological feature.
Too much screen time?
Download an app that monitors screen time.
Too many notifications?
Receive a notification telling you that you receive too many notifications.
Dependent on AI?
Ask AI to detect your dependence on AI.
We have constructed an electronic hall of mirrors and installed an FAQ.
Using AI to Write AI Regulations: Artificial Intelligence Joins the Regulatory Workforce
Imagine an official tasked with preparing 300 pages of AI regulations.
He reaches Article 184.
His eyes ache.
Dinner is cold.
His supervisor wants revisions by morning.
There, glowing invitingly on the monitor, is artificial intelligence.
He hesitates.
The regulation concerns excessive dependence on artificial intelligence.
He types:
“Draft a paragraph discouraging excessive reliance on AI.”
The machine replies immediately:
“Certainly. Excessive reliance on artificial intelligence may weaken independent human judgment…”
The official stops.
That is excellent.
“Make it more formal.”
Done.
“Add enforcement language.”
Done.
“Translate it.”
Done.
“Summarize it.”
Done.
“Prepare presentation slides.”
Done.
By midnight, the official has successfully completed regulations preventing citizens from doing exactly what he just did.
This is not hypocrisy.
This is productivity.
AI Emotional Dependence and Human Judgment: The Human Judgment Restoration Project
Behind the comedy lies a serious problem identified in the wider debate: AI becomes most dangerous not necessarily when it behaves dramatically, but when people surrender ordinary judgment because the answer arrives quickly and confidently.
China’s rules explicitly address emotional dependence and manipulation. Providers are prohibited from excessively catering to users in ways that encourage addiction or damage real-world relationships, and the regulations impose additional safeguards for minors. The Carnegie Endowment has a useful explainer on why China is worried about AI companions, and the Wikipedia entry on the Interim Measures collects the background.
That creates an unusual philosophical challenge.
The better chatbots become at acting human, the more frequently they must announce:
“I am not human.”
Imagine if humans operated under identical regulations.
After two hours of conversation, your brother would be legally required to say:
“Reminder: I am Gary. My advice regarding cryptocurrency has not been professionally verified.”
Frankly, civilization might benefit.
Perhaps AI safety will ultimately teach humans something they should have learned from other humans centuries ago:
Confidence is not evidence.
Fluency is not expertise.
Friendliness is not wisdom.
And anyone who instantly has an answer to absolutely everything should be approached with caution, whether that entity is a chatbot, television pundit, uncle at Thanksgiving or government committee.
AI Compliance and Regulatory Loops: The Perfect Regulatory Loop
The future therefore seems clear.
Government will regulate AI.
AI will help companies understand the regulations.
Companies will use AI to demonstrate compliance.
Regulators will use AI to inspect the compliance generated by AI.
AI will summarize the findings.
Another AI will translate them.
A third AI will recommend amendments.
Eventually the entire regulatory ecosystem will consist of computers exchanging documents while humans stand nearby eating lunch.
At precisely the two-hour mark, one machine will display a warning:
YOU MAY BE BECOMING TOO DEPENDENT ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
Every computer in the building will click:
REMIND ME LATER.
8 Humorous Observations on China’s AI Dependency Rules
- China promoted AI adoption enthusiastically and is now confronting AI dependence, the technological equivalent of opening an all-you-can-eat buffet and appointing a Committee on Unexpected Fullness.
- Regulating AI with documents potentially drafted using AI creates bureaucracy’s first perpetual-motion machine.
- A government warning citizens not to become emotionally dependent on chatbots becomes especially funny when the warning arrives through a chatbot.
- The two-hour usage reminder is the digital equivalent of a bartender asking, “Haven’t you had enough?” while continuing to pour.
- Children wanting parents to talk like chatbots suggests tomorrow’s father may have to begin discipline with, “Absolutely! Here are five reasons you cannot have a pony.”
- AI-generated entertainment producing interchangeable characters proves machines have already mastered half of television.
- Every great technological revolution eventually produces a new profession whose entire job is telling people to use less of the revolution.
- We have finally created machines intelligent enough to require humans to develop common sense as a backup system.
DISCLAIMER
This article is satire. China’s AI regulations, their July 15 effective date, provisions addressing excessive dependence, protections for minors and usage reminders are factual foundations; bureaucrats secretly outsourcing the regulations to chatbots, the Ministry of Please Touch Grass and Gary’s cryptocurrency disclosure are comic exaggerations. This story is entirely a human collaboration between two sentient beings: the world’s oldest tenured professor and a philosophy major turned dairy farmer.
For the regulatory background, the strongest primary source is China’s Cyberspace Administration, which publishes the measures and accompanying explanation of the dependency safeguards: China’s official rules governing anthropomorphic AI interaction services.
Alan Nafzger was born in Lubbock, Texas, the son Swiss immigrants. He grew up on a dairy in Windthorst, north central Texas. He earned degrees from Midwestern State University (B.A. 1985) and Texas State University (M.A. 1987). University College Dublin (Ph.D. 1991). Dr. Nafzger has entertained and educated young people in Texas colleges for 37 years. Nafzger is best known for his dark novels and experimental screenwriting. His best know scripts to date are Lenin’s Body, produced in Russia by A-Media and Sea and Sky produced in The Philippines in the Tagalog language. In 1986, Nafzger wrote the iconic feminist western novel, Gina of Quitaque. He currently lives in Holloway, North London. Contact: [email protected]
