3 ms·

this is the gun debate rephrased

by permo-w 4y ago

bumby 4y ago
There is a fundamental difference in the US: access to guns is a constitutional right.
- Spivak 4y ago
  But that fact doesn’t matter in the actual discussion because the debate is the same but the implementation is different. In the US the “get rid of guns” stance is just restricting their use to the maximum extent allowed by the constitution and making them as close to de facto banned as possible.
  - bumby 4y ago
    The fact that there is a constitutional right puts pretty strong limits on where that line is drawn though. I think those guardrails make it a fundamentally different perspective.
- emptybits 4y ago
  Freedom to speak and publish, even dangerous ideas, is also a right. Beyond the US.
  - bumby 4y ago
    True, but (in the US at least), those rights also stop when they come up against an imminent threat. See the trope about falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. The issue here seems to be accurately defining that risk.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
      The "fire in a crowded theater" case was overturned as unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
      - bumby 4y ago
        That’s because the original case was not actually about inciting an imminent threat. It was about speech regarding a war draft. The theater was an analogy in the case opinion. Limits to speech were sill upheld if that speech could reasonably incite “imminent lawless action”.
        brigandish 4y ago
        Incitement to imminent lawless action[1] was a test applied from 1969 onwards (from Brandenburg v. Ohio[2]), the test used in the case you're referring to (Schenck v. United States (1919)[3]) was that of clear and present danger[4]. > Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined the clear and present danger test in 1919 in Schenck v. United States, offering more latitude to Congress for restricting speech in times of war, saying that when words are "of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent....no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." That was ostensibly for sending literature to recently conscripted soldiers suggesting that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude that violated the Thirteenth Amendment. Whereas, clear and present danger is defined as: > Advocacy could be punished only "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That test is basically redrawing the law so it fits, once again, with that of common assault and breach of the peace. Still, I'm not sure what relevance all of this has to the subject at hand, unless we're going to end up at whether something is legal or not or even more absurdly, whether there's a war or not. Those are not very interest nor compelling arguments, especially as there are no such kits yet and no such law regarding the kits (unless we concede that it may well be covered under the 2nd amendment, as it states arms not guns). [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-i... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-o... [3] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-united-states https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-unite... [4] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-prese...
    - emptybits 4y ago
      It's really different IMO. "Fire!" (falsely) in crowded theatre: Specific. Beneficial outcome unlikely and difficult to even imagine. Harmful outcomes nearly certain. Powerful AI codebase or service: Generic. Endless beneficial and harmful outcomes easily imagined.
      - bumby 4y ago
        That's a pretty key difference and a good point. But we still regulate stuff with a similar dichotomy. Nuclear material can be used to treat cancer. But it can also be used to make weapons. We regulate both.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        >Powerful AI codebase or service: Generic. Generic means it can do a nearly unlimited list of things good and bad right? Just like a human can do a list of nearly unlimited things? Humans, because they can do both good and bad have laws they must follow if they do bad, right? Then what are you suggesting for AI?
c0mptonFP 4y ago
The sole purpose of guns is to harm/kill. Not comparable to ML.
- permo-w 4y ago
  the comment I’m replying to is talking about a DIY coronavirus kit
brigandish 4y ago
Because the gun debate has the same interesting facets that most people ignore, things like ignoring presumption of innocence, what to do about technology that will inevitably become more efficient, cheap, and easy to produce, among other things.

this is the gun debate rephrased

bumby 4y ago

There is a fundamental difference in the US: access to guns is a constitutional right.

Spivak 4y ago
But that fact doesn’t matter in the actual discussion because the debate is the same but the implementation is different. In the US the “get rid of guns” stance is just restricting their use to the maximum extent allowed by the constitution and making them as close to de facto banned as possible.
- bumby 4y ago
  The fact that there is a constitutional right puts pretty strong limits on where that line is drawn though. I think those guardrails make it a fundamentally different perspective.
emptybits 4y ago
Freedom to speak and publish, even dangerous ideas, is also a right. Beyond the US.
- bumby 4y ago
  True, but (in the US at least), those rights also stop when they come up against an imminent threat. See the trope about falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. The issue here seems to be accurately defining that risk.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
    The "fire in a crowded theater" case was overturned as unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
    - bumby 4y ago
      That’s because the original case was not actually about inciting an imminent threat. It was about speech regarding a war draft. The theater was an analogy in the case opinion. Limits to speech were sill upheld if that speech could reasonably incite “imminent lawless action”.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        Incitement to imminent lawless action[1] was a test applied from 1969 onwards (from Brandenburg v. Ohio[2]), the test used in the case you're referring to (Schenck v. United States (1919)[3]) was that of clear and present danger[4]. > Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined the clear and present danger test in 1919 in Schenck v. United States, offering more latitude to Congress for restricting speech in times of war, saying that when words are "of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent....no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." That was ostensibly for sending literature to recently conscripted soldiers suggesting that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude that violated the Thirteenth Amendment. Whereas, clear and present danger is defined as: > Advocacy could be punished only "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That test is basically redrawing the law so it fits, once again, with that of common assault and breach of the peace. Still, I'm not sure what relevance all of this has to the subject at hand, unless we're going to end up at whether something is legal or not or even more absurdly, whether there's a war or not. Those are not very interest nor compelling arguments, especially as there are no such kits yet and no such law regarding the kits (unless we concede that it may well be covered under the 2nd amendment, as it states arms not guns). [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-i... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-o... [3] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-united-states https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-unite... [4] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-prese...
  - emptybits 4y ago
    It's really different IMO. "Fire!" (falsely) in crowded theatre: Specific. Beneficial outcome unlikely and difficult to even imagine. Harmful outcomes nearly certain. Powerful AI codebase or service: Generic. Endless beneficial and harmful outcomes easily imagined.
    - bumby 4y ago
      That's a pretty key difference and a good point. But we still regulate stuff with a similar dichotomy. Nuclear material can be used to treat cancer. But it can also be used to make weapons. We regulate both.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      >Powerful AI codebase or service: Generic. Generic means it can do a nearly unlimited list of things good and bad right? Just like a human can do a list of nearly unlimited things? Humans, because they can do both good and bad have laws they must follow if they do bad, right? Then what are you suggesting for AI?

c0mptonFP 4y ago

The sole purpose of guns is to harm/kill. Not comparable to ML.

permo-w 4y ago
the comment I’m replying to is talking about a DIY coronavirus kit

brigandish 4y ago

Because the gun debate has the same interesting facets that most people ignore, things like ignoring presumption of innocence, what to do about technology that will inevitably become more efficient, cheap, and easy to produce, among other things.