5 ms·
"Making clothes for soldiers" is reaching. You're expanding "use technology for war" to the point of nonsense and diluting the point. I can just as easily say t
by dsacco 9y ago
"Making clothes for soldiers" is reaching. You're expanding "use technology for war" to the point of nonsense and diluting the point. I can just as easily say that the cotton gin enhanced every thing ever because it allowed every human involved in every endeavor to wear clothes.
Furthermore, to circle back to your original point: even if we accept that the cotton gin is a technology "used for war", it most certainly was not the first nor the primary use of that technology (the first use was clothing).
- Veedrac 9y agoYou're cherry-picking an irrelevant property of the argument. So what if, hypothetically, general AI is used nth rather than 1st in line for warfare? It's still AI used for warfare.
- WheelsAtLarge 9y agoOk don't take that as an impact but tech does not live in a bubble. The cotton gin was a contributor to the civil war. It made cotton processing much easier and more cotton was grown which required more slaves. Which inflamed the debate between the ones that wanted slavery and those that did not. So from my view it not only aided the war once it started. But it was also a contributor to its beginning. But whatever I say you'll find fault. You'll focus on the small details. I'm a techie too and I sometimes find myself arguing the smallest detail whether it has consequences or not. It's that type of attention to detail that keeps us employed when we need to make sure things are working. The bottom line is that you think tech is great while I think it's great but we have to be careful with it's development and use. All I can say is that it's worth being careful where we step.