4 ms·
> If he believes in the potential harm of AI, then supporting its widespread use doesn't seem logical. If you take the quote above, and substitute the word "gun
by athenot 11y ago
> If he believes in the potential harm of AI, then supporting its widespread use doesn't seem logical. If you take the quote above, and substitute the word "guns" for "AI", you basically have the NRA, and the NRA is not making the world a safer place.
Guns are not exactly good at healing, making or creating.
A better comparison would be knives. Knives can be used for stabbing and killing but also for sustenance (cooking), for healing (surgery), for arts (sculpture). So perhaps this is akin to National Cutlery Association (not sure if such an entity exists but you get the idea).
- sombremesa 11y agoWell, with that logic you can bring guns right back into the equation. Soldering guns, glue guns, nail guns, vaccination guns...
- nicolashahn 11y agoYou're right, guns are pure evil. Clearly, we should take them out of the hands of cops, bodyguards, hunters, and civilians defending themselves.
- tempestn 11y agoThat's a strawman argument. Parent is pointing out that unlike guns, AI (and knives) have purposes other than use as a weapon, and therefore it is possible that their widespread proliferation would be good, even if that of weapons is bad. Certainly weapons (including guns) have non-evil purposes as well, but that's beside the point.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoGuns also have uses other than a weapon. They shoot, but that doesn't mean they are inherently shooting living things. Just like knives stab and cut, but do not always target living things.
- gmac 11y agoIronically, you're absolutely right. Cops, bodyguards and civilians defending themselves generally only need guns because their adversaries have guns. Just take them out of everyone's hands. I know this works, if you can make it happen, because I've seen the gun death statistics for countries with effective gun control. Hunters are a different case, but their weapons are rather different too. To be honest I wouldn't that much care about depriving them of a pastime if it meant turning US gun death figures into European ones. But that's probably unnecessary.
- sageikosa 11y agoWe'll ask nicely. Please don't shoot.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago>Cops, bodyguards and civilians defending themselves generally only need guns because their adversaries have guns. Not at all the case. Guns allow for the physically weak to still have a chance to defend themselves. On NPR I remember calling for the police to help as her ex was breaking into the home. They didn't have anyone anywhere near by and the woman had no weapons on her. The boyfriend ended up breaking in and attacking her quite badly. He didn't need a weapon and a weapon wouldn't have made what he did any worse, but it might have given her the chance for the victim to defend herself or scare him off.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoTo clarify, I meant on NPR I remember hearing a story about a woman calling for the police. Not sure how I forgot to add in about 4 words there.
- whazor 11y agoHe does not state that guns are evil. Also, where I live bodyguards and civilians are not allowed to have guns. Many cops do not even carry guns. So for me it is hard to identify the comparison to guns.
- wyager 11y ago>and the NRA is not making the world a safer place. There is actually very little evidence for this. Violent crime is not strongly correlated with gun ownership (and it may even be negatively correlated). Instead, it appears to be based strongly on factors like poverty. Here's a good summary. http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/613/gun-prevalence-vs-homicide-rates-correlation-and-causation http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/613/gun-prevalen...