5 ms·

Illegal guns kill people. Something like 80-90% of guns involved in homicide are illegally obtained/possessed. This is relevant because like banning guns, “bann

Illegal guns kill people. Something like 80-90% of guns involved in homicide are illegally obtained/possessed. This is relevant because like banning guns, “banning” AI shouldn’t be the focus. It seems like an AI detection arms race is inevitable.

jfengel 3y ago
Illegal guns start as legal guns. With both AI and guns you need to be willing to think about the problem at every step in the chain, not just at the end.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > Illegal guns start as legal guns. To be pedantic, there are very few actually illegal guns. Mostly we are talking about crimes committed by felons who have committed prior crimes are no longer legally allowed access to firearms. That same gun, if possessed by a non-felon, would be legal. I don't know if this is or isn't important to the analogy, but I do think it applies.
EGreg 3y ago
Wait a moment. If 80-90% of guns used to kill people are illegally obtained, that means the laws successfully generate a regime by which guns are obtained much more safely. Now all that remains is to enforce the laws and crack down on illegal gun sales (although in USA that isn’t all since old guns already purchased illegally will continue to work for decades) It’s like when people were saying that 80-90% of people dying in hospitals were unvaccinated. So vaccination helped right?
joncrocks 3y ago
Apologies for taking the bait. If the number of legal firearms were reduced then would that not reduce the pool from which the illegal firearms can be obtained? Agreed it doesn't completely solve the issue, but could make it significantly less likely that one would encounter a firearm in general.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Likely, yes. One of the practical difficulties in the US, however, is that the pool has historically been replenished by the trafficking of guns. So yes, reducing the pool of available guns is prima facie sensible, but it takes a fair bit more than declaring guns illegal. Further complicating the issue is the fact that guns have a very long service life. I have an FB Vis from 1942 that still works flawlessly, despite having seen years of service in actual war. With ordinary care and the replacement of high-wear parts (the extractor, mostly, and maybe the barrel), I’d expect it to run at least another 100k rounds. The proposition to reduce gun violence by reducing the number of guns in circulation has to account for the guns already in circulation, and for the propensity of black markets to introduce new guns into circulation. Otherwise, the only thing achieved is the disarming of the groups of people with legitimate uses for firearms. It’s not as simple as “guns are the problem”, nor is it as simple as “more guns are the solution”, I’m afraid.
goodpoint 3y ago
Then how comes a 10 year old cannot buy a gun or drive a car?

jfengel 3y ago

Illegal guns start as legal guns. With both AI and guns you need to be willing to think about the problem at every step in the chain, not just at the end.

justrealist 3y ago
> Illegal guns start as legal guns. To be pedantic, there are very few actually illegal guns. Mostly we are talking about crimes committed by felons who have committed prior crimes are no longer legally allowed access to firearms. That same gun, if possessed by a non-felon, would be legal. I don't know if this is or isn't important to the analogy, but I do think it applies.

EGreg 3y ago

Wait a moment. If 80-90% of guns used to kill people are illegally obtained, that means the laws successfully generate a regime by which guns are obtained much more safely. Now all that remains is to enforce the laws and crack down on illegal gun sales (although in USA that isn’t all since old guns already purchased illegally will continue to work for decades) It’s like when people were saying that 80-90% of people dying in hospitals were unvaccinated. So vaccination helped right?

joncrocks 3y ago

Apologies for taking the bait. If the number of legal firearms were reduced then would that not reduce the pool from which the illegal firearms can be obtained? Agreed it doesn't completely solve the issue, but could make it significantly less likely that one would encounter a firearm in general.

omginternets 3y ago
Likely, yes. One of the practical difficulties in the US, however, is that the pool has historically been replenished by the trafficking of guns. So yes, reducing the pool of available guns is prima facie sensible, but it takes a fair bit more than declaring guns illegal. Further complicating the issue is the fact that guns have a very long service life. I have an FB Vis from 1942 that still works flawlessly, despite having seen years of service in actual war. With ordinary care and the replacement of high-wear parts (the extractor, mostly, and maybe the barrel), I’d expect it to run at least another 100k rounds. The proposition to reduce gun violence by reducing the number of guns in circulation has to account for the guns already in circulation, and for the propensity of black markets to introduce new guns into circulation. Otherwise, the only thing achieved is the disarming of the groups of people with legitimate uses for firearms. It’s not as simple as “guns are the problem”, nor is it as simple as “more guns are the solution”, I’m afraid.

goodpoint 3y ago

Then how comes a 10 year old cannot buy a gun or drive a car?