4 ms·

The best thing you can do with powerful technology is to give it away for free. Then everyone is on even footing and you don’t get an abusive power imbalance.

• RhysU 6y ago
  Nuclear proliferation is a counter example. Its danger goes up the more states that have the tech.
  • sgillen 6y ago
    More dangerous, less power imbalance.
  • twirlip 6y ago
    Hmm, when only one nation-state had atomic weapons, they were used. When two nation-states had them, conflict was measured in proxy wars and influence. Still, the accidental detonation of atomic weapons is significant, so your point holds true.
  • catalogia 6y ago
    North Korea has nuclear weapons and they seem to be the looniest state around (Russia, America, and China also have nuclear weapons); I think this horse has left the stable.
    • 082349872349872 6y ago
      Take a look at the trajectories North Korea has used in their missile tests. Their leadership may well be as loony as claimed, but whoever is picking parabolas knows how to speak softly and loft a high apogee. (similarly, no matter how loony their current CINC may be, whoever in the USAF redeployed B-52s from Andersen AFB to Minot AFB also understands aposematism)
  • xenocyon 6y ago
    I'm opposed to nuclear weapons, but: the principle of nuclear non-proliferation - or, in other words, the oligopolization of nuclear strike capability - is more of a subjective and self-serving value held by the US (and some other nuclear powers) than a universal objective truth. If, hypothetically, the US lacked nuclear weapons that other countries had, the acquisition of nuclear capability by a hitherto non-nuclear USA would suddenly be seen as very desirable, and there wouldn't be all this talk about the dangers of proliferation.
  • collyw 6y ago
    I saw a comment once pointing out that once a country has nuclear weapons, it tends not to be threatened by others. At the level of individual countries, the danger goes down.
  • Nasrudith 6y ago
    Nuclear weapon proliferation is actually two risks fighting each other for total risk curves fighting each other - conventional war prevention and irrational actor risk. More proliferation prevents conventional wars. Pakistan and India have limited themselves to skirmishes at worst. However the more proliferation the greater the risk of a suicidal actor who doesn't care about or seeks mutually assued destruction. If you want world peace betweeen nations at any cost give every nation ICBMs and nuclear warheads sufficient to break through enough of everyone's defenses - it will last unless and until thermonuclear war starts.
• aeternum 6y ago
  That works well with software, but it looks like AI is trending towards requiring some pretty hefty hardware, especially for training. It will be interesting to see if giving away the software is enough.
• smt88 6y ago
  > Then everyone is on even footing and you don’t get an abusive power imbalance. This doesn't hold up to even a first test using a real-world example. Consider making guns free. Even if everyone owned an identical gun with identical ammo (an asburdly artificial situation to begin with), not everyone can use a gun equally effectively. Apply it now to crowds. If everyone owns the same gun, it takes far fewer people to band together and take physical control of a certain area. Even an individual with that same gun is effectively powerless again even two others: to kill one is to be certainly killed by the other. Now swap the guns with fighter jets, zero-day exploits, bioweapons, fame, religious leadership, or any other form of power. There is seemingly no scenario where your axiom seems to hold up, even in contrived circumstances.
  • sigstoat 6y ago
    > Now swap the guns with... muscles? upper body strength? that free gun world sounds pretty good. > Apply it now to crowds. If everyone owns the same gun, it takes far fewer people to band together and take physical control of a certain area. that in no way follows.
    • smt88 6y ago
      > muscles? upper body strength? The original post was about technology. > that in no way follows. Scenario A: No one has a weapon. Five people take control of a grocery store. How many people can take back the store without anyone dying? The answer might be as low as five. Certainly 10-15 people could do it. Scenario B: Everyone has an identical gun. Five people take control of a grocery store. Same question. The answer is that there is no number of people high enough to plausibly reduce the risk of death to zero. Someone with a gun can kill much faster and at greater distance. Long story short: technology amplifies power. Sufficiently amplified power cannot be countered by equal power quickly enough to nullify the danger.