Concerns surrounding "AI out of control" are evolving into a much broader regulatory debate. In the view of analysts, if the logic of regulation extends from curbing AI risks to identity verification, content censorship, and digital infrastructure, the ultimate impact may fall not only on the AI industry but on the operating rules of the entire internet.

According to an analysis by OffGuardian author Kit Knightly, the current discussion around AI risk shares certain narrative parallels with earlier climate change debates 鈥?first emphasizing the danger, then pushing for intervention measures, and ultimately possibly culminating in a stricter regulatory framework.

Under this "worst-case scenario," regulation could advance along a gradually expanding path: first raising the barriers to using AI services by tightening control through paid access, real-name registration, and content censorship; then, on the grounds of preventing AI from impersonating humans, promoting a "Proof of Personhood" mechanism that binds digital identity to more online activities; and finally, the energy consumption and carbon emissions of data centers could become a new regulatory entry point, further affecting the cost of internet use.

For investors, this means open-source AI models could face higher compliance thresholds, the regulatory costs of AI infrastructure may rise, and the advantages held by large technology companies through capital, technology, and compliance capabilities could widen further. At the same time, small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on generative AI to lower operating costs will also face greater policy uncertainty.

Paid Access and Real-Name Registration: AI Access Barriers May Rise Further

Analysts suggest that potential regulatory measures may first manifest in the barriers to AI usage. The model of free, anonymous access to generative AI may face more restrictions, and users may in the future need to pay and complete identity verification before they can use certain AI services.

At the same time, the recording, review, and even government reporting of user prompts could also become part of the regulatory framework. Such measures may be justified primarily on the grounds of preventing AI-generated illegal content.

For the open-source AI community, the impact could be even more direct. If model developers are required to register with the government, pay fees, and submit to review, the development threshold for the open-source ecosystem may rise significantly. The ongoing debate in the UK Parliament over the "Social Media Licensing Bill" is also seen as a reference case for a similar regulatory approach.

If these measures advance in tandem, they could further drive up AI development and operating costs and reinforce the advantages of existing leading companies in capital, technology, and compliance, while small and medium-sized independent developers and enterprises may face higher entry barriers.

"Proof of Personhood": Digital Identity May Become the Internet's Passport

Another potential regulatory path points to the long-standing issue of anonymity on the internet. On the pretext of preventing "rogue AI disguised as humans," regulators may further promote a "Proof of Personhood" mechanism.

Under this vision, digital activities such as opening social media accounts, making online payments, and purchasing hosting services could all be tied to a verified digital identity. Noema Magazine has previously warned that as AI agents scale across the internet, platforms may require users to verify their identity to prove they are real humans.

If this mechanism expands further, its impact could go beyond AI regulation itself. Online activities that rely on anonymity, such as VPN use and cryptocurrency transactions, could also face stricter identity verification requirements, with the regulatory justification similarly pointing to the risk of "rogue AI" exploiting anonymous online activity to evade tracking.

Data Center Taxes and "Carbon Footprint": The Cost of Internet Use May Rise

A further scenario involves constraints on internet use itself. Related analysis suggests that issues such as the high electricity and water consumption of data centers and their carbon emissions could become the policy basis for driving up the cost of digital usage, extending further to ordinary users' internet consumption.

Under this framework, "non-essential internet traffic" such as social media, streaming, online shopping, and gaming could in the future be incorporated into a digital account management system similar to a carbon footprint. Rising streaming prices, limits on viewing hours, and higher costs for "unlimited data" plans could all become potential policy tools.

For website operators, measures such as a "data center tax" could also be transmitted through hosting costs to the entire internet ecosystem, and cross-border access could even face higher costs. Large enterprises, with stronger cost-bearing capacity and compliance resources, may be relatively less affected, while independent media and small websites could face rising operational pressure.

It should be emphasized that the above content is currently primarily a worst-case scenario exercise, not an already-determined policy path. Kit Knightly also positioned the article as a hypothetical discussion, so some of these judgments still carry considerable uncertainty. But for market participants, regulatory expectations alone can influence corporate decisions and valuations. Open-source AI platforms, small and medium-sized technology companies, and digital media that rely on anonymous traffic could all face potential policy risks.

As AI capabilities expand rapidly, regulation and compliance are becoming important variables shaping the competitive landscape of the industry. If related requirements continue to tighten, rising compliance costs could further strengthen the competitive advantages of large enterprises and drive deeper changes in the rules of the internet.