4 ms·
Good question. I would apply that reasoning to the information about how a gun works for sure, but IMO there is some (admittedly hard to define) amount of dange
by barnabee 4y ago
Good question. I would apply that reasoning to the information about how a gun works for sure, but IMO there is some (admittedly hard to define) amount of danger or perhaps destructive power beyond which we might or perhaps should choose as a society to restrict the ability to wield a tool and certainly at least some guns exceed that limit for me. I’m not sure that any software, on its own, does though, at least I can’t think of any immediate examples.
I admit that this limit is hard to define. It’s also extremely hard to enforce for pure data, if that turns out to be what we want to do.
- bko 4y agoI agree its a very hard line to draw. But I think certain technology is more contagious and dangerous. For instance, a single person with a gun can inflict damage locally with dire consequences on his or her own personal safety in the process. But if someone has a virus (physical or digital), then it caries a kind of contagion that can disproportionately hurt many more people. That's why we can't equate something like deaths due to car accidents to pandemic deaths. A single car accident doesn't increase the risk of all car accidents. It's localized. But a single infection increases the risk of future infections due to contagion. Whether you think any technology falls into the dangerous contagious category or not is up for debate.
- Scea91 4y agoIn this analogy information about how gun works would be an equivalent of Deepfake research paper. This tool is analogous to an actual gun.