4 ms·

This attitude seems at home in tech, and perhaps the grammatical form would save us time writing the word "inevitably". Self-assured certainty about the future

This attitude seems at home in tech, and perhaps the grammatical form would save us time writing the word "inevitably". Self-assured certainty about the future is everywhere in our business, whether it's disciples of the smartphone-gulag telling us that "modern life is now impossible without one", or prophets announcing the death of cash, and many other opinions on digital technology about which it "is already too late". Those are dangerous quasi-religious ideas in my reckoning, and not at all befitting rational scientists and engineers. Perseverate rigidity (the inability to see alternate futures or believe in choice) arises for many reasons; trauma, intolerance of uncertainty about the future, or low neuro-plasticity, or as a self-reinforcing belief in cults and echo-chambers. It is as if we live in the future we think we want, and by acting as if it has already happened, usher it into being. But I think this is strangely parochial. Only 70 years ago fears over the proliferation of nuclear technology into the civic or even domestic/personal spheres (think radium watch dials and nuclear batteries) were addressed by forming the International Atomic Energy Agency [0]. Since then it's successfully tracked knowledge hazards and exports, created safeguards, and generally stewarded nuclear development in the world. Perhaps we'll see a similar set up for AI, or even for all digital technologies, if we can't move beyond our belief in "irresistible forces" and "inevitability". I think the true spirit of science and innovation is not just to see what is possible, but to remember that everything else is too. [0] https://www.iaea.org/ https://www.iaea.org/

carlosjobim 3y ago
That is a good and refreshing example. Some people were scared to death by nuclear war. Then suddenly it was decided that everybody just forget about that fear, even though nothing has changed regarding the numbers of nuclear arms and the risk of them being used. But in the end that fear served nobody and nuclear war has been avoided. I think nuclear fear continues to be a very handy card for the rulers to pull out of their sleeves whenever they have a need to quickly throw the populace into fear and desperation.
- corinroyal 3y ago
  I've never been bitten by a rattle snake. Does that mean me wearing boots and stepping carefully on hikes has been pointless? How do you know that the fear served no one? Is it possible the anti-nuke movement changed the way we consider the risks and rationale of nuclear deterrence? How come we never hear about acid rain or the ozone layer anymore. Are the movements examples of mass hysterics or of people pushing progress? Did you know that world nuclear stockpiles have shrunk dramatically in recent decades from ~70,000 warheads in 1986 to ~12,000 today? Would it affect your risk calculation if stockpiles had grown or spread? If they are as safe as you claim, should numbers, actors, and locations even matter? Have you considered the effects of a loss of vigilance might have?
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    I have no idea why your blood seams to be boiling from my comment. > Did you know that world nuclear stockpiles have shrunk dramatically in recent decades from ~70,000 warheads in 1986 to ~12,000 today? No, and neither do you. The quality and quantity of nuclear arms is something that only people involved in military intelligence knows. I expect that arms continually become more and more lethal, whether the military communicates that or not. > Would it affect your risk calculation if stockpiles had grown or spread? What risk calculation? There's nothing I can do about the threat level of nuclear arms. > If they are as safe as you claim, should numbers, actors, and locations even matter? What is as safe as I claim? Nuclear arms?

carlosjobim 3y ago

That is a good and refreshing example. Some people were scared to death by nuclear war. Then suddenly it was decided that everybody just forget about that fear, even though nothing has changed regarding the numbers of nuclear arms and the risk of them being used. But in the end that fear served nobody and nuclear war has been avoided. I think nuclear fear continues to be a very handy card for the rulers to pull out of their sleeves whenever they have a need to quickly throw the populace into fear and desperation.

corinroyal 3y ago
I've never been bitten by a rattle snake. Does that mean me wearing boots and stepping carefully on hikes has been pointless? How do you know that the fear served no one? Is it possible the anti-nuke movement changed the way we consider the risks and rationale of nuclear deterrence? How come we never hear about acid rain or the ozone layer anymore. Are the movements examples of mass hysterics or of people pushing progress? Did you know that world nuclear stockpiles have shrunk dramatically in recent decades from ~70,000 warheads in 1986 to ~12,000 today? Would it affect your risk calculation if stockpiles had grown or spread? If they are as safe as you claim, should numbers, actors, and locations even matter? Have you considered the effects of a loss of vigilance might have?
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  I have no idea why your blood seams to be boiling from my comment. > Did you know that world nuclear stockpiles have shrunk dramatically in recent decades from ~70,000 warheads in 1986 to ~12,000 today? No, and neither do you. The quality and quantity of nuclear arms is something that only people involved in military intelligence knows. I expect that arms continually become more and more lethal, whether the military communicates that or not. > Would it affect your risk calculation if stockpiles had grown or spread? What risk calculation? There's nothing I can do about the threat level of nuclear arms. > If they are as safe as you claim, should numbers, actors, and locations even matter? What is as safe as I claim? Nuclear arms?