Nah, I disagree on both counts.

We can't beat it. We need to outlaw it.

Is the intent here to preserve jobs even if it's less productive? That's solving the wrong problem. Instead of banning it, we should be adapting to it. If AI is more efficient than people, the jobs people take should change.

I think there's a solid case that if something would devolve into rent-seeking because competition is unproductive, it should be provided as a public service. Do you need a job if all of your basic needs are met by AI? At that point, any work you do would be optional, so people would follow their passions instead of working to make ends meet (see: Star Trek universe).

Think of it like Basic Income, but instead of cash, you'd get services at-cost. I think there's room for non-profits (or maybe the government) to provide these AI-services at-cost.