3 ms·

The reason nukes aren't used has more to do with mutually assured destruction (MAD) and less to do with diplomacy. What happens when a technological advance giv

by rcme 4y ago

The reason nukes aren't used has more to do with mutually assured destruction (MAD) and less to do with diplomacy. What happens when a technological advance gives a nation a big enough advantage such that mutual destruction is no longer assured?

yunwal 4y ago
Why would we, as tech workers, build this system? Stuff like this takes tens of thousands of people deciding "sure, I'll contribute to the destruction of the earth for a few thousand bucks". Why? Why not go the gain-of-function route and just agree as a profession not to do it in large enough numbers to enable its development? Sure, this requires agreement among a lot of disagreeable people, but if we can't mostly agree on not destroying the world I think all hope is lost anyway.
- rcme 4y ago
  > Sure, this requires agreement among a lot of disagreeable people Disagreeable people implies they're unable to come to agreement, so you're kind of begging the question. Additionally, even if a vast majority of people favor peaceful solutions, there will always be those who are willing to exploit technological asymmetry. It's not a problem you can just wish away. It's best to accept that warfare is a reality we may need to face. It's not helpful to bury your head in the sand.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    > exploit technological asymmetry AI technologies like this require hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to develop. If chip manufacturers refuse to work with these people, cloud computing companies refuse to work with these people, then it won't be developed. Mark of Death. Burying your head in the sand, IMO, looks like continuing to develop dangerous technologies knowing they will likely end in disaster because "technological progress can't be stopped". Somehow the medical profession has ethical guidelines that are followed enough to not result in existential crises, but we technologists could never I guess

by rcme 4y ago

yunwal 4y ago

Why would we, as tech workers, build this system? Stuff like this takes tens of thousands of people deciding "sure, I'll contribute to the destruction of the earth for a few thousand bucks". Why? Why not go the gain-of-function route and just agree as a profession not to do it in large enough numbers to enable its development? Sure, this requires agreement among a lot of disagreeable people, but if we can't mostly agree on not destroying the world I think all hope is lost anyway.

rcme 4y ago
> Sure, this requires agreement among a lot of disagreeable people Disagreeable people implies they're unable to come to agreement, so you're kind of begging the question. Additionally, even if a vast majority of people favor peaceful solutions, there will always be those who are willing to exploit technological asymmetry. It's not a problem you can just wish away. It's best to accept that warfare is a reality we may need to face. It's not helpful to bury your head in the sand.
- yunwal 4y ago
  > exploit technological asymmetry AI technologies like this require hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to develop. If chip manufacturers refuse to work with these people, cloud computing companies refuse to work with these people, then it won't be developed. Mark of Death. Burying your head in the sand, IMO, looks like continuing to develop dangerous technologies knowing they will likely end in disaster because "technological progress can't be stopped". Somehow the medical profession has ethical guidelines that are followed enough to not result in existential crises, but we technologists could never I guess