Lacking an immediate solution to a complex problem does not mean these problems don’t exist. I’ve noticed often lately that people, when talking past each othe

Lacking an immediate solution to a complex problem does not mean these problems don’t exist. I’ve noticed often lately that people, when talking past each other, one person is saying, “We really need to consider the implications of problem X.” and the other person will imply “If there is no obvious solution, then no one should consider this a problem.” When it comes to problems, particularly in complex subjects which aren’t yet well understood, and where there aren’t yet an overabundance of high caliber researchers, this comes across as dismissive of the problem. This can be even more concerning if we know there are investors lined up who will happily sell something to the world and who will intentionally hide or minimize known ethical concerns. And then play dumb and shocked later when the very same problems manifest. I see this dismissal of justifiable and real concerns an awful lot in conversations of all kinds lately. And from what I’ve seen, no one here is anti-ML, no one on either side here is a luddite. But like so many conversations online, we should quit talking past each other and likely need to quit trying to paint people as if their concerns don’t have very real ethical implications which will, if left unaddressed, manifest in all kinds of negative ways throughout society. Again, a lack of a neat and tidy solution doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.