3 ms·

Luddites. If you look at the course of history, every attempt to slow the adoption of new technology has been a disaster for human welfare. This policy move is

Luddites. If you look at the course of history, every attempt to slow the adoption of new technology has been a disaster for human welfare. This policy move is just like trying to ban the telephone or the printing press.

tppiotrowski 6y ago
I see this more along the lines of preventing nuclear proliferation, chemical and biological warfare.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  This is more like banning the production of chlorine gas because someone might put it in an artillery shell --- never mind all the other useful things you can do with chlorine gas. If you want to regulate externalities, regulate externalities: don't ban technology itself.
  - KineticLensman 6y ago
    > don't ban technology itself The EU isn't planning to ban underlying AI technologies, but instead to control its use in applications such as credit worthiness assessment
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      ai need training data. Its not just a technology play.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      ...which is basically banning people from measuring risk for themselves and deciding how to react to that risk themselves. How is this not authoritarian?
      - La1n 6y ago
        >How is this not authoritarian Authoritatian can mean so many things, could you define it further. Cause how I read your comment I could call seatbelt laws authoritatian, and I guess you didn't mean that.
KineticLensman 6y ago
> every attempt to slow the adoption of new technology has been a disaster for human welfare Counter-example: nuclear non-proliferation treaties.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  Maybe if we gave every country nuclear weapons we could stop having proxy wars through poorer/developing countries.
Jiejeing 6y ago
It is humorous that you bring up Luddites, as they were one of the first 19th century movements (among many) that sought to fight the mechanization and industrialization of their labor, and were repressed by military might because god forbid someone sabotage a machine. Many "innovations" were bought at the beginning not for real use, but in order to threaten the working class with this new tool, so that they do not ask for more job stability, higher wages, or reduced working hours (e.g. grain harvesters, industrial looms, etc). And the new technology when used often resulted in a net negative in terms of life expectancy, environmental pollution, danger or physical load, which was then disregarded as a necessary sacrifice that the poor need to make in the inexorable march of progress.

tppiotrowski 6y ago

I see this more along the lines of preventing nuclear proliferation, chemical and biological warfare.

quotemstr 6y ago
This is more like banning the production of chlorine gas because someone might put it in an artillery shell --- never mind all the other useful things you can do with chlorine gas. If you want to regulate externalities, regulate externalities: don't ban technology itself.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  > don't ban technology itself The EU isn't planning to ban underlying AI technologies, but instead to control its use in applications such as credit worthiness assessment
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    ai need training data. Its not just a technology play.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    ...which is basically banning people from measuring risk for themselves and deciding how to react to that risk themselves. How is this not authoritarian?
    - La1n 6y ago
      >How is this not authoritarian Authoritatian can mean so many things, could you define it further. Cause how I read your comment I could call seatbelt laws authoritatian, and I guess you didn't mean that.

KineticLensman 6y ago

> every attempt to slow the adoption of new technology has been a disaster for human welfare Counter-example: nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

ativzzz 6y ago
Maybe if we gave every country nuclear weapons we could stop having proxy wars through poorer/developing countries.

Jiejeing 6y ago

It is humorous that you bring up Luddites, as they were one of the first 19th century movements (among many) that sought to fight the mechanization and industrialization of their labor, and were repressed by military might because god forbid someone sabotage a machine. Many "innovations" were bought at the beginning not for real use, but in order to threaten the working class with this new tool, so that they do not ask for more job stability, higher wages, or reduced working hours (e.g. grain harvesters, industrial looms, etc). And the new technology when used often resulted in a net negative in terms of life expectancy, environmental pollution, danger or physical load, which was then disregarded as a necessary sacrifice that the poor need to make in the inexorable march of progress.