5 ms·

> people are the ones doing the bad things. Technology is just a force or thought multiplier. He explained it so well. It sort of clicked into my brain Except,

by jonahx 9y ago

> people are the ones doing the bad things. Technology is just a force or thought multiplier. He explained it so well. It sort of clicked into my brain Except, this isn't empirically true. It's the same argument made by the NRA ("guns don't kill people, people kill people"). To be clear, I'm not weighing in on the gun debate here, only pointing out that if people have easy access to guns, you will have more deaths by guns. There's something comforting about the view that "it's really just people doing these things," because it suggests we aren't responsible for our inventions and their consequences. It sidesteps the actual unfathomable complexity, which at high level is this: people are living an environment which can be changed with new technology, which will in turn cause them to behave differently in unpredictable ways. Make no mistake: the technology causes the change.

bitexploder 9y ago
I don't think we can unwind it so simply. The basic consequences of technology are not new. The scale and asymmetry are. It shifts power around and changes who can make decisions about what happens. Of course we are responsible for our inventions. Oppenheimer and co. lived with the most dramatic weight of such decisions. No one solely blames the president who went ahead with dropping the bombs. It took thousands of people making a conscious effort to build and deploy the technology. In a sense we all own that to this day. But at it's heart it is and always will be driven by the choices of people. As long as we agree that our will as human beings exceeds that of technology, then it is people doing the changing, whether thru build of tech or use thereof.
- sooheon 9y ago
  I think you missed the point of the parent. The idea of an atom bomb did not enter Truman's mind out of the blue sky. People create technology, and that in turn influences decisions. The types of technology we surround ourselves will in turn shape us, and the further decisions we make. It's more intertwined than a simple "force multiplier", it's also a force director in a way.
- jonahx 9y ago
  The point is easier to see with things like the printing press, the personal computer, cell phones, or even facebook... > As long as we agree that our will as human beings exceeds that of technology, then it is people doing the changing, whether thru build of tech or use thereof. The collective will of human beings is helpless in the face of such technologies. To act as if we have control over the changes they produce deeply misunderstands the situation.
- mseebach 9y ago
  Guns and nuclear bombs are still "just" force multipliers, but they are multipliers of predominantly or even overwhelmingly negative forces. The problem isn't that trivial conclusion in isolation, it's what happens in a multi-actor game, where the other players have significantly higher badness than yourself. Despicable as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, had Hitler or Stalin gotten the bomb first, there's a substantial risk of a much, much worse outcome. Stalin did get the bomb, but MAD ensured that he never used it. That is also a force multiplier. Same dilemma for guns: could you remove all guns from everyone at once (except cops and perhaps carefully trained, background-checked, mentally sound, and clean-criminal-record holding citizens, and without going door-to-door Iraqi-counter-insurgency-style), it would probably be quite simple to get a clear majority for doing it. But you can't, and so removing the guns means removing them from people for whom they represent the least of a negatively multiplied force. Hence the slogan, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    > [Guns and nuclear bombs] are multipliers of predominantly or even overwhelmingly negative forces. Whether this statement is true is not clear. The time since multiple countries have had nuclear weapons has been one of the most peaceful times in human history. You can't just look at all the times guns and bombs are used, you have to also include all the times they have been there and not used.
    - mseebach 9y ago
      Yeah, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. Using a gun/bomb is overwhelmingly negative, having one is significantly more ambiguous.
pizza 9y ago
If we establish these ground-rules: 1. [proof of concept] the inventor is responsible for the invention's (initial) appearance, but not for any other person's epiphanies regarding possible use-cases {in HN speak: execution(opportunity) >= execution(invention) >> imagination(invention) > imagination(execution(opportunity)) } 2. [proof that one can rely upon proof of concept] the user is responsible for the opportunity in which the invention is used 3. [proof of concept evolves into paradigm] society becomes aware of opportunities in which established inventions have typically been used or hypothetical (realistic?) situations in which their use would be significant ..it may become easier to discriminate the components of responsibility. [does responsibility obey the distribute property? Does it obey association? (Could it ever be abelian???), etc...] Furthermore... I can understand people making choices affect the choices that others can make as a lemma - but I don't particularly believe the TOOLS that people decide upon ARE EXACTLY those 'choice-deltas' - without a huge deviation from ordinary definition of technology ( which I think is not without rationale).
- jonahx 9y ago
  I probably shouldn't have mentioned responsibility -- it wasn't the main point I was trying to make. My point is something like "people living in a world with X" are different from "people living in a world without X" in profound ways, and it's not under anyone's control. I'm not really interested in how we distribute blame -- only in pointing out that you can't release new technology, shrug your shoulders, and say, "Well, if it's misused, not on us." A far more accurate metaphor would be to consider us like animals in captivity.
  - pizza 9y ago
    OK. I admit that the preexisting presence of an object influences the decision to use it or not far more than most would probably care to admit. But I think one of the problems is when people start to sum history to explain something new's causality. It's like saying you should trust a prior probability to predict an event's occurrence more than the posterior probability after it happens - a new piece of evidence is categorically different than a historical tendency.. if that makes sense?
lr4444lr 9y ago
...if people have easy access to guns, you will have more deaths by guns ... because guns are a "force or thought multiplier". I read that about 40,000 people are killed/injured by guns per year, with 44% of households owning one. Meanwhile 1.3 million people die in road crashes - let alone injuries. If we simply judge "empirically" what happens by sheer ratios of ownership, the NRA's arguments make even more sense. That isn't to say I agree with their jingoism, but let's not oversimplify the issue.
- titzer 9y ago
  > Meanwhile 1.3 million people die in road crashes You're comparing a global number to...something else. In the US (~33,000 deaths annually by firearm, including suicide, ~32,000 traffic fatalities). What was your point again?
  - fundabulousrIII 9y ago
    You'd rather the suicides use more primitive implements? If you are done with things a gun is pretty painless and nearly certain. Everything else should have warning labels.
    - grzm 9y ago
      As the guidelines request, > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html This is particularly important on sensitive topics, such as this one. The goal of HN is not combative arguments, but rather constructive, substantive discussion.
      - fundabulousrIII 9y ago
        Get a life. Oh, excuse me, was my sarcasm too transparent?
        9y ago

by jonahx 9y ago

bitexploder 9y ago

I don't think we can unwind it so simply. The basic consequences of technology are not new. The scale and asymmetry are. It shifts power around and changes who can make decisions about what happens. Of course we are responsible for our inventions. Oppenheimer and co. lived with the most dramatic weight of such decisions. No one solely blames the president who went ahead with dropping the bombs. It took thousands of people making a conscious effort to build and deploy the technology. In a sense we all own that to this day. But at it's heart it is and always will be driven by the choices of people. As long as we agree that our will as human beings exceeds that of technology, then it is people doing the changing, whether thru build of tech or use thereof.

sooheon 9y ago
I think you missed the point of the parent. The idea of an atom bomb did not enter Truman's mind out of the blue sky. People create technology, and that in turn influences decisions. The types of technology we surround ourselves will in turn shape us, and the further decisions we make. It's more intertwined than a simple "force multiplier", it's also a force director in a way.
jonahx 9y ago
The point is easier to see with things like the printing press, the personal computer, cell phones, or even facebook... > As long as we agree that our will as human beings exceeds that of technology, then it is people doing the changing, whether thru build of tech or use thereof. The collective will of human beings is helpless in the face of such technologies. To act as if we have control over the changes they produce deeply misunderstands the situation.
mseebach 9y ago
Guns and nuclear bombs are still "just" force multipliers, but they are multipliers of predominantly or even overwhelmingly negative forces. The problem isn't that trivial conclusion in isolation, it's what happens in a multi-actor game, where the other players have significantly higher badness than yourself. Despicable as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, had Hitler or Stalin gotten the bomb first, there's a substantial risk of a much, much worse outcome. Stalin did get the bomb, but MAD ensured that he never used it. That is also a force multiplier. Same dilemma for guns: could you remove all guns from everyone at once (except cops and perhaps carefully trained, background-checked, mentally sound, and clean-criminal-record holding citizens, and without going door-to-door Iraqi-counter-insurgency-style), it would probably be quite simple to get a clear majority for doing it. But you can't, and so removing the guns means removing them from people for whom they represent the least of a negatively multiplied force. Hence the slogan, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  > [Guns and nuclear bombs] are multipliers of predominantly or even overwhelmingly negative forces. Whether this statement is true is not clear. The time since multiple countries have had nuclear weapons has been one of the most peaceful times in human history. You can't just look at all the times guns and bombs are used, you have to also include all the times they have been there and not used.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    Yeah, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. Using a gun/bomb is overwhelmingly negative, having one is significantly more ambiguous.

pizza 9y ago

If we establish these ground-rules: 1. [proof of concept] the inventor is responsible for the invention's (initial) appearance, but not for any other person's epiphanies regarding possible use-cases {in HN speak: execution(opportunity) >= execution(invention) >> imagination(invention) > imagination(execution(opportunity)) } 2. [proof that one can rely upon proof of concept] the user is responsible for the opportunity in which the invention is used 3. [proof of concept evolves into paradigm] society becomes aware of opportunities in which established inventions have typically been used or hypothetical (realistic?) situations in which their use would be significant ..it may become easier to discriminate the components of responsibility. [does responsibility obey the distribute property? Does it obey association? (Could it ever be abelian???), etc...] Furthermore... I can understand people making choices affect the choices that others can make as a lemma - but I don't particularly believe the TOOLS that people decide upon ARE EXACTLY those 'choice-deltas' - without a huge deviation from ordinary definition of technology ( which I think is not without rationale).

jonahx 9y ago
I probably shouldn't have mentioned responsibility -- it wasn't the main point I was trying to make. My point is something like "people living in a world with X" are different from "people living in a world without X" in profound ways, and it's not under anyone's control. I'm not really interested in how we distribute blame -- only in pointing out that you can't release new technology, shrug your shoulders, and say, "Well, if it's misused, not on us." A far more accurate metaphor would be to consider us like animals in captivity.
- pizza 9y ago
  OK. I admit that the preexisting presence of an object influences the decision to use it or not far more than most would probably care to admit. But I think one of the problems is when people start to sum history to explain something new's causality. It's like saying you should trust a prior probability to predict an event's occurrence more than the posterior probability after it happens - a new piece of evidence is categorically different than a historical tendency.. if that makes sense?

lr4444lr 9y ago

...if people have easy access to guns, you will have more deaths by guns ... because guns are a "force or thought multiplier". I read that about 40,000 people are killed/injured by guns per year, with 44% of households owning one. Meanwhile 1.3 million people die in road crashes - let alone injuries. If we simply judge "empirically" what happens by sheer ratios of ownership, the NRA's arguments make even more sense. That isn't to say I agree with their jingoism, but let's not oversimplify the issue.

titzer 9y ago
> Meanwhile 1.3 million people die in road crashes You're comparing a global number to...something else. In the US (~33,000 deaths annually by firearm, including suicide, ~32,000 traffic fatalities). What was your point again?
- fundabulousrIII 9y ago
  You'd rather the suicides use more primitive implements? If you are done with things a gun is pretty painless and nearly certain. Everything else should have warning labels.
  - grzm 9y ago
    As the guidelines request, > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html This is particularly important on sensitive topics, such as this one. The goal of HN is not combative arguments, but rather constructive, substantive discussion.
    - fundabulousrIII 9y ago
      Get a life. Oh, excuse me, was my sarcasm too transparent?
      - 9y ago