4 ms·
Stunning how scientists who work on this stuff delude themselves into thinking it'll do more good than harm.
by kaesar14 3y ago
Stunning how scientists who work on this stuff delude themselves into thinking it'll do more good than harm.
- ravenstine 3y agoMany of us here on HN do the exact same thing.
- AlexandrB 3y agoWhen the work you're doing is several layers of abstraction removed from its worst applications it's easy to rationalize. For the authoritarian leader, this is a huge advantage of specialization and "replaceable cog in the machine" style of job standardization - no one person is building enough of the "evil" thing to feel responsible for the result, and most of the workers are replaceable enough that the "if I don't do it, they'll just get someone else who will" rationalization is probably correct.
- JohnFen 3y ago> that the "if I don't do it, they'll just get someone else who will" rationalization is probably correct. That may be correct, but from an ethical point of view, it's completely bankrupt. People who justify doing things they know to be unethical on the basis that someone else will just do it anyway are, of course, being unethical even if they are correct. Even worse are those people who think others will do it anyway, so it's better if they themselves (obviously being good people) do it instead of those other, terrible people.
- f6v 3y agoSo the solution is to not work on anything that can be weaponized?
- throwaway71271 3y agoanything can be weaponized, john wick kills people with a pencil :)
- JohnFen 3y agoEverything can (and will) be weaponized, so the only realistic way to approach it is as a cost/benefit analysis. If something can bring more good than harm, excellent. If something can bring more harm than good, then maybe rethink things.
- kaesar14 3y agoThe upside to this technology is allowing a few people to communicate who have neurological damage. The downside is every government on earth being able to read your mind. Sounds like a good trade!
- drdeca 3y agoTo not work on anything where the risks from its potential weaponization outweigh the likely benefits of beneficial uses?