GDPR is not simply dead, but also wastes time of billions of people daily by displaying useless prompts that do not provide any real benefit.

OPs reasoning is that when government tries to regulate complex things that it doesn't understand the result usually is something useless like GDPR.

Well that's plainly false. Contracts are complex and private law can solve most disputes handsomely. Insurance contracts are complex and the valuation of those contacts as well and the European legislation has made insurers both more resilient and comparable. It took a decade to get there though.

There's no reason to presume that the use of AI in firms is too complex to be legislated. Basically I'd hope it turns out to have both a ex ante compliance aspect (a firm needs to document X, Y and prove and register Z) and ex post aspect (individuals can sue and judges can assign damages for failing to comply). The OP has a knee-jerk reaction to a list of techniques that might lead to discriminatory practices.

GDPR isn't a bad law in my book. Cookie walls are both cargo cults and a function of disfunctional tracking practices in the market. Lack of enforcement is key in not recognising the value of the law. If compliance with GDPR would be a board level concern we'd be on another internet/ in another world by now.