4 ms·

You can ALMOST take all of the arguments about gun control and replace "gun" with "AI". AI is a powerful thing, and can do great damage in the wrong hands. Any

You can ALMOST take all of the arguments about gun control and replace "gun" with "AI". AI is a powerful thing, and can do great damage in the wrong hands. Any powerful thing can do damage in the wrong hands. The difference between AI and guns is right in the name. AI is intelligence. It could conceivably act on its own. A gun (usually) will not do anything except what its builder or owner commands it to do. So the problem with AI is half what the owner commands it to do and half what it decides to do on its own. And that does make it fundamentally different and potentially much more dangerous than other powerful things. As to which of those problem is the bigger problem, the people who control or what it decides to do on its own, I would say the owners are likely the bigger problem. If someone builds AI without safeguards in place or explicitly commands AI to do bad things, then we should expect a bad outcome. If owners act responsibly and ethically and build in safeguards, we should prepare for a bad outcome but expect a good outcome.

phillipcarter 3y ago
> It could conceivably act on its own But it really can't today, not without a bad actor giving it specific goals and figuring out ways to make those yield real-world outcomes. Which is the entire point of the article.
- kalkin 3y ago
  I didn't actually see where it made that argument - that AI intrinsically can't be agentic, or something like that - in this article. Can you point me to it?
- Sol- 3y ago
  But people already try to do that, see AutoGPT and similar endeavors. Whether agentic AI will appear is not a question at all - humans will make it so just to see what happens or to serve their goals.
hanniabu 3y ago
And just like guns, it shouldn't be banned/limited. Not to belittle the downsides, as they're valid, but the outcome is much worst when the access is only one sided. In both cases it leads to oppression.
- felixgallo 3y ago
  Don't be simplistic. As technology gets better, you need to put constraints in place for essentially everything that can cause harm. And thankfully we do, as you can find out if you try to buy a machine gun, an ICBM, Sarin gas, a grenade, antipersonnel mines, a silencer, and so on. Reasonable people disagree on where the line should be, but nobody's being oppressed from not being able to buy an ICBM or antipersonnel mines or a machine gun.
  - waterheater 3y ago
    > nobody's being oppressed from not being able to buy an ICBM or antipersonnel mines or a machine gun. Unless an oppressive adversary has such weapons (ICBMs, antipersonnel mines, or machine guns), wants control of your land, and decides to take it. In that situation, a country will seek to utilize such or more powerful weaponry for themselves to defend their people. If that country (1) did not manufacture such weaponry inside their borders and (2) were prevented from purchasing such weaponry from other countries by blockade, sanction, or other means, then yes, those people will be oppressed.
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    You can buy a machine gun, it justs costs extra, so only the rich have machine guns. Same with everything else on your list ;)
    - felixgallo 3y ago
      good luck buying Sarin gas :)
      - jazzyjackson 3y ago
echelon 3y ago
Not sure this analogy works. For instance, what happens if one company gets to control the future of social media, education, etc. through AI? That company can then unilaterally dictate our minds. That risk doesn't map to the gun thing at all.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
UberFly 3y ago
Unfortunately though only corporations and governments will be able to wield it. The common person will be at their whim more than ever.
notacoward 3y ago
Guns don't hallucinate. Guns also (currently) require a human to pull the trigger. Even if the human is a dirtbag, that's an important limitation on the gun's potential to do damage because the human is vulnerable. The analogy doesn't work, even before we get to things like limited ammunition or potential for self-enhancement or omnipresence.
usrusr 3y ago
When someone does bad things to you with a gun you know about it. When bad things happen to you because of AI, chances are you won't have the slightest clue. In this it is far more similar to PII abuse, where many of the worst things remain well outside your awareness.
avgcorrection 3y ago
> The difference between AI and guns is right in the name. AI is intelligence. The difference between guns and automobiles is in the name. Cars are mobile by themselves. That’s a slippery slope waiting to happen. It’s been called “AI” ever since they were puny inference programs. Them having “intelligence” in the name signifies nothing. Only what they can do in reality.

phillipcarter 3y ago

> It could conceivably act on its own But it really can't today, not without a bad actor giving it specific goals and figuring out ways to make those yield real-world outcomes. Which is the entire point of the article.

kalkin 3y ago
I didn't actually see where it made that argument - that AI intrinsically can't be agentic, or something like that - in this article. Can you point me to it?
Sol- 3y ago
But people already try to do that, see AutoGPT and similar endeavors. Whether agentic AI will appear is not a question at all - humans will make it so just to see what happens or to serve their goals.

hanniabu 3y ago

And just like guns, it shouldn't be banned/limited. Not to belittle the downsides, as they're valid, but the outcome is much worst when the access is only one sided. In both cases it leads to oppression.

felixgallo 3y ago
Don't be simplistic. As technology gets better, you need to put constraints in place for essentially everything that can cause harm. And thankfully we do, as you can find out if you try to buy a machine gun, an ICBM, Sarin gas, a grenade, antipersonnel mines, a silencer, and so on. Reasonable people disagree on where the line should be, but nobody's being oppressed from not being able to buy an ICBM or antipersonnel mines or a machine gun.
- waterheater 3y ago
  > nobody's being oppressed from not being able to buy an ICBM or antipersonnel mines or a machine gun. Unless an oppressive adversary has such weapons (ICBMs, antipersonnel mines, or machine guns), wants control of your land, and decides to take it. In that situation, a country will seek to utilize such or more powerful weaponry for themselves to defend their people. If that country (1) did not manufacture such weaponry inside their borders and (2) were prevented from purchasing such weaponry from other countries by blockade, sanction, or other means, then yes, those people will be oppressed.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  You can buy a machine gun, it justs costs extra, so only the rich have machine guns. Same with everything else on your list ;)
  - felixgallo 3y ago
    good luck buying Sarin gas :)
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago

echelon 3y ago

Not sure this analogy works. For instance, what happens if one company gets to control the future of social media, education, etc. through AI? That company can then unilaterally dictate our minds. That risk doesn't map to the gun thing at all.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

UberFly 3y ago

Unfortunately though only corporations and governments will be able to wield it. The common person will be at their whim more than ever.

notacoward 3y ago

Guns don't hallucinate. Guns also (currently) require a human to pull the trigger. Even if the human is a dirtbag, that's an important limitation on the gun's potential to do damage because the human is vulnerable. The analogy doesn't work, even before we get to things like limited ammunition or potential for self-enhancement or omnipresence.

usrusr 3y ago

When someone does bad things to you with a gun you know about it. When bad things happen to you because of AI, chances are you won't have the slightest clue. In this it is far more similar to PII abuse, where many of the worst things remain well outside your awareness.

avgcorrection 3y ago

> The difference between AI and guns is right in the name. AI is intelligence. The difference between guns and automobiles is in the name. Cars are mobile by themselves. That’s a slippery slope waiting to happen. It’s been called “AI” ever since they were puny inference programs. Them having “intelligence” in the name signifies nothing. Only what they can do in reality.