This is a settled area of law; revoking the copyright would be a "taking", inarguably for the public good, and the copyright holder would be entitled to just compensation.

IMO that is the appropriate way to handle this issue; effectively the government uses eminent domain to seize the copyright.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m...

Is a good meta-analysis, which on this particular data point leads to:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf

And in the OP's substantive point about "violent crimes", the FBI's crime stats prove them definitively correct.

The point is what a designation is for; in the case of an arrest vs detention or seizure for natural persons, it's usually an elaborate shell game around when various search doctrines or other restraints on police behavior kick in. In the case of property, the only point is to grab your stuff; the circumstances surrounding it don't particularly matter because they can always decide later under one doctrine or another that they're entitled to keep it.

In another, the legs are crooked.

California is trying so hard to go full Venezuela, and the only buffer they have are the three or so major industries that are doing well (agriculture, entertainment, and tech). If there's a contraction in those sectors, expect a death spiral.

Trivially false; human productivity routinely differs by a factor of thousands to millions.

"How do I make a program make beautiful music" is a CS problem, but only after you have some notion of aesthetics in the first place.

In the context of a universal optimizer, "how do we make this program behave reasonably without bad side effects" is maybe a CS problem, but it's predicated on "how do we codify our notion of reasonable behavior", which is analytic philosophy with probably a bit of social science thrown in.

Problem-posing is itself difficult and how a lot of philosophical breakthroughs are made. If you want rigorous problem-posing where the solution would be handy for AI, hiring a philosopher might be a good start. Very few of us are equipped to do this kind of work, certainly not here in the comments section.

The hard part is actually figuring out what you care about, particularly in the context of a truly universal optimizer that can decide to trade off anything in the pursuit of its objectives.

This has been a core problem of philosophy for 3000 years - that is, putting some amount of rigorous codification behind human preferences. You could think of it as a branch of deontology, or maybe aesthetics. It is extremely unlikely that a group sponsored by Sam Altman, whose brilliant idea was "let's put the government in charge of it" [1], will make a breakthrough there.

I don't actually doubt that AIs would lead to philosophical implications, and philosophers like Nick Land have actually explored some of that area. But I severely doubt the ability of AI researchers to do serious philosophy and simultaneously build an AI that reifies those concepts.

[1] http://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2