3 ms·

Any law that gives regular law abiding citizens privacy is also shielding "terrorists and pedophiles" by affording them the same. Any such law will get blanket

Any law that gives regular law abiding citizens privacy is also shielding "terrorists and pedophiles" by affording them the same. Any such law will get blanket application over the whole population. On the other hand the real issue I see is that while the EU will put the breaks on its own development of the tech, the US and China will accelerate it. Sooner or later the EU will likely drop the position when the stakes are high enough and it suits "someone", and just back channel to obtain access to it. Which is possibly the worst position to be in.

arthurcolle 6y ago
Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. Personally I think this AI stuff is pretty neat, but society must have a larger conversation around the existing power structures before we just let the most well capitalized business entities and their business owners (again, some of the wealthiest figures in recorded history) utilize these tools through which capital will become further concentrated just because some of their employees have a PhD and make 350k and now are able to just spend all their time developing technologies with clear non-linear payoffs, enriching some at the explicit expense of others at a structurally different rate than previous technological innovations. What does everyone think of Palantir? Do they have much of a foothold in Europe? I imagine not since they are direct contractors to the US government, but I mean they are again doing massive data analytics on the human population in ways that are almost as sketchy as Facebook, but with worse implications because of the direct interfacing with the military-industrial complex.
- ThalesX 6y ago
  > Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. But why not? Long as we're talking about 'reality annihilation' technology, maybe the researches stumble upon unknown truths about reality. Perhaps they also touch upon 'reality creating' technology, giving them infinite cups of Earl Gray tea. As long as someone is going to use AI to create immense wealth for themselves, and potentially destructive weapons, as a European, I think we'd be fools not to try and at least understand the developments, the risks, and have contingency plans (think Batman) for dealing with what might come out of it. Things we can't do without our own research and know how.
- buran77 6y ago
  > justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do That's a false conclusion, I'm not suggesting they should develop their own, just that they will be in a the position where others have it and the EU will be knocking at their doors to get access. Whether it will be for legitimate interest or not is another topic.
- op03 6y ago
  Well that great military industrial complex, with its 2 dozen intelligence agencies and access to every data source imaginable had no clue where Donald Trump came from. Same story will repeat with Palantir or whoever else. Just having access to all data doesnt mean anything or our libraries and patent offices would be mass producing Einsteins. Its like watching huricanes, you can have thousands of sensors, radar, satelites etc and have no clue which way its going to move tomorrow morning. And no one is even day dreaming about what needs to happen before the chimp troupe with 6 inch brains can control the path of a huricane. So while these data oriented firms be it Palantir, FB, Netflix all happily trumpet capabilities of prediction and control there is lot of proof they are coasting on hot air.

arthurcolle 6y ago

Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. Personally I think this AI stuff is pretty neat, but society must have a larger conversation around the existing power structures before we just let the most well capitalized business entities and their business owners (again, some of the wealthiest figures in recorded history) utilize these tools through which capital will become further concentrated just because some of their employees have a PhD and make 350k and now are able to just spend all their time developing technologies with clear non-linear payoffs, enriching some at the explicit expense of others at a structurally different rate than previous technological innovations. What does everyone think of Palantir? Do they have much of a foothold in Europe? I imagine not since they are direct contractors to the US government, but I mean they are again doing massive data analytics on the human population in ways that are almost as sketchy as Facebook, but with worse implications because of the direct interfacing with the military-industrial complex.

ThalesX 6y ago
> Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. But why not? Long as we're talking about 'reality annihilation' technology, maybe the researches stumble upon unknown truths about reality. Perhaps they also touch upon 'reality creating' technology, giving them infinite cups of Earl Gray tea. As long as someone is going to use AI to create immense wealth for themselves, and potentially destructive weapons, as a European, I think we'd be fools not to try and at least understand the developments, the risks, and have contingency plans (think Batman) for dealing with what might come out of it. Things we can't do without our own research and know how.
buran77 6y ago
> justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do That's a false conclusion, I'm not suggesting they should develop their own, just that they will be in a the position where others have it and the EU will be knocking at their doors to get access. Whether it will be for legitimate interest or not is another topic.
op03 6y ago
Well that great military industrial complex, with its 2 dozen intelligence agencies and access to every data source imaginable had no clue where Donald Trump came from. Same story will repeat with Palantir or whoever else. Just having access to all data doesnt mean anything or our libraries and patent offices would be mass producing Einsteins. Its like watching huricanes, you can have thousands of sensors, radar, satelites etc and have no clue which way its going to move tomorrow morning. And no one is even day dreaming about what needs to happen before the chimp troupe with 6 inch brains can control the path of a huricane. So while these data oriented firms be it Palantir, FB, Netflix all happily trumpet capabilities of prediction and control there is lot of proof they are coasting on hot air.