3 ms·
> It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. This seems backwards and co
by hackerlight 4y ago
> It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter.
This seems backwards and contrary to lessons learned in the past. Once the thing exists, prohibition is infeasible and expensive. Supply will find a way to reaech demand regardless of your multi-billion dollar efforts to prevent that.
It's better to stop $NEFARIOUS_THING being invented in the first place, if possible, and if any regulations that achieve this don't have too many unintended side effects.
- zpeti 4y agoIf you could see the future that works, but I just don’t see how you know what will be used for nefarious purposes in the future. In fact most technology does both negative and positive things. It’s not obvious banning it completely will be a net positive. Especially with AI. There’s a lot of potentially great uses. Like detecting cancer on CT scans.
- hackerlight 4y agoI'm not advocating for or against any particular regulation. Whatever gets implemented should be well thought out, because it's easier to destroy upside potential than it is to prevent downside potential. I am aware of this. All that I'm speaking out against is the mindset of the post I was replying to, where the onus is solely on the user of the tool rather than on the context (laws, situation, people) that leads to the invention of the tool itself. I believe this to be a misunderstanding/misattribution of causality, as well as contrary to learned experience.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]