5 ms·

As is often the case, John is right. The peasants deserve crossbows ;)

by glonq 3y ago

pixl97 3y ago
And yet we are not given nukes. Going to be interesting where the lines end up in this new world.
- api 3y ago
  Language models are not nukes and there is no real world evidence that they will become anywhere near this dangerous, or dangerous at all really. Meanwhile you can buy an AR-15 in many states if you can fog glass, or order the supplies to do CRISPR gene editing yourself. We have people calling for bans on code and math based on nothing more than sci-fi. I too agree with Carmack that AI doomerism has a definite subtext of concern for changes in power dynamics.
  - mike_ivanov 3y ago
    "no real world evidence that they will" what is that mean, anyways?
    - smegsicle 3y ago
      let's break it down no: "there isn't any" real world evidence: "reason to believe" that they will become dangerous i think he's referencing how the only reason anyone would think that there's any kind of existential threat is from sci-fi doomerism however i feel like perhaps i missed the point of your comment, if so could you explain?
      - mike_ivanov 3y ago
        Evidence necessarily belongs to the past. It is something that already exists - a known fact, an event, etc. How on earth there could be evidence of things that have never been? "There is no evidence that a black swan will be ever found". Hmm. OK.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - goatlover 3y ago
      So far, there hasn't been evidence that AI poses an actual danger to human society. There are lots of predictions that it could, or fictional scenarios where it does. But no actual real-world cases.
      - mike_ivanov 3y ago
        Let me rephrase. There hasn't been evidence that AI doesn't pose an actual danger to human society. There are lots of predictions that it could not, or fictional scenarios where it does not. But no actual real-world cases. See my point?
        api 3y ago
        There is no evidence you will become a serial killer, but there is no evidence you won’t. I could certainly construct plausible scenarios where you do and even write a book about it. Therefore we should lock you up now. Banning things on the basis of evidence free speculation is a really dangerous road to go down.
        pixl97 3y ago
        Probabilistically there is some evidence you'll become a serial killer. For example, if you were being hired by law enforcement and you had written a number of books that stated that being a serial killer was a good thing, then you wouldn't get hired. There appears to be a particular type of black and white response in this thread that seemingly ignores that the world is black and white.
        mike_ivanov 3y ago
        I'm not asking anybody to ban anything. I'm just pointing at a flawed piece of logic. Again - there is no evidence (and cannot be! - by definition) of things that never happened before. Forecasts and opinions are not evidence, that's it.
        Difwif 3y ago
        This is like someone saying there's no proof of God and then responding with there's no proof that there isn't a God. It's safe to say that the burden of proof falls on the one making outrageous claims which is you.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    > or order the supplies to do CRISPR gene editing yourself. woah what and why
- chrisco255 3y ago
  The destructive power of nukes is not the stuff of fantasy and fiction.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    The destructive power of human intelligence isn't the stuff of fantasy and fiction either.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Nukes are not that useful for stuff other than extremely destructive explosions. Besides, we have knives. I'm afraid this mindset will soon demand everything to be pre-cut in licensed facilities and make the knives illegal. This desire for censorship and restrictions is infinitely ridiculous. Instead of addressing the issues of why would someone want to hurt someone or themselves, they try to eliminate the tools. This is going to fail, maybe people in UK or in the USA might end up not knowing how things work without formal licensing but people in Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, China, Vietnam will know. This attitude can actually lead to the downfall of the western societies. WTF the computer wouldn't tell me how to cook meth? That's something that junkies do and it's not the lack of knowing how to cook it that keeps me from doing it. I'm just curious, not looking to harm myself or anybody but I'm being lectured by a computer.
  - BudaDude 3y ago
    > Nukes are not that useful for stuff other than extremely destructive explosions. I would like to mention that in the Fallout series, a game that depicts a different version of history where nuclear power was widely accessible, cars and robots have their own nuclear generators. The reality is that if nuclear power was common, we would not have any problems with energy or a power grid.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Nukes and nuclear energy are different things. It’s also not a secret how to do these things, they teach it to kids. The complexities come from the engineering the device and that’s actually the secret part.
      - taeric 3y ago
        They aren't that different, all told. There is a reason IEDs are a huge safety concern. I'm failing to see how that wouldn't be worse with nuclear power sources. Or am I mistaken and you could make it so that IEDs from nuclear energy couldn't be done?
- hackernewds 3y ago
  what about giving all humans guns? the crossbow seems a loaded and limited example
ed_balls 3y ago
What about a crossbow with a warhead that can kill 100 people?
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Sounds like something good to have if you need to make your government behave.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Carmack says in one of the subthreads on there that he's pro-second-amendment, so that tracks I suppose. But it's kinda futile, it's just the illusion of having power and self-governance, when the others have machine guns and worse.
SilverBirch 3y ago
Does this idea work at all though? Like for one, did peasants ever in history actually have crossbows and if they did, did it ever actually help them? Like to me the crossbow sounds like an expensive weapon that would likely be issued to soldiers in an army and the idea that a peasant would have one of their own seems unlikely. I don't know the history but it just doesn't sound right at all to me. Also the closest modern analogy I guess is America where everyone has a gun and the idea that those guns actually pose a threat to the US government or the hegemony of large corporations is... fanciful. The practical effect is inner city gun violence and school shootings, not some balancing effect against corporate greed. I'm just saying... if the analogy you're using to justify your position seems to be entirely wrong doesn't that kind of undermine your position? It's not obvious to me that "peasants with crossbows" is helping here.
- thelastparadise 3y ago
  Look up the history of guerilla warfare.

As is often the case, John is right. The peasants deserve crossbows ;)

by glonq 3y ago

As is often the case, John is right. The peasants deserve crossbows ;)

pixl97 3y ago

And yet we are not given nukes. Going to be interesting where the lines end up in this new world.

api 3y ago
Language models are not nukes and there is no real world evidence that they will become anywhere near this dangerous, or dangerous at all really. Meanwhile you can buy an AR-15 in many states if you can fog glass, or order the supplies to do CRISPR gene editing yourself. We have people calling for bans on code and math based on nothing more than sci-fi. I too agree with Carmack that AI doomerism has a definite subtext of concern for changes in power dynamics.
- mike_ivanov 3y ago
  "no real world evidence that they will" what is that mean, anyways?
  - smegsicle 3y ago
    let's break it down no: "there isn't any" real world evidence: "reason to believe" that they will become dangerous i think he's referencing how the only reason anyone would think that there's any kind of existential threat is from sci-fi doomerism however i feel like perhaps i missed the point of your comment, if so could you explain?
    - mike_ivanov 3y ago
      Evidence necessarily belongs to the past. It is something that already exists - a known fact, an event, etc. How on earth there could be evidence of things that have never been? "There is no evidence that a black swan will be ever found". Hmm. OK.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - goatlover 3y ago
    So far, there hasn't been evidence that AI poses an actual danger to human society. There are lots of predictions that it could, or fictional scenarios where it does. But no actual real-world cases.
    - mike_ivanov 3y ago
      Let me rephrase. There hasn't been evidence that AI doesn't pose an actual danger to human society. There are lots of predictions that it could not, or fictional scenarios where it does not. But no actual real-world cases. See my point?
      - api 3y ago
        There is no evidence you will become a serial killer, but there is no evidence you won’t. I could certainly construct plausible scenarios where you do and even write a book about it. Therefore we should lock you up now. Banning things on the basis of evidence free speculation is a really dangerous road to go down.
        pixl97 3y ago
        Probabilistically there is some evidence you'll become a serial killer. For example, if you were being hired by law enforcement and you had written a number of books that stated that being a serial killer was a good thing, then you wouldn't get hired. There appears to be a particular type of black and white response in this thread that seemingly ignores that the world is black and white.
        mike_ivanov 3y ago
        I'm not asking anybody to ban anything. I'm just pointing at a flawed piece of logic. Again - there is no evidence (and cannot be! - by definition) of things that never happened before. Forecasts and opinions are not evidence, that's it.
      - Difwif 3y ago
        This is like someone saying there's no proof of God and then responding with there's no proof that there isn't a God. It's safe to say that the burden of proof falls on the one making outrageous claims which is you.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  > or order the supplies to do CRISPR gene editing yourself. woah what and why
chrisco255 3y ago
The destructive power of nukes is not the stuff of fantasy and fiction.
- pixl97 3y ago
  The destructive power of human intelligence isn't the stuff of fantasy and fiction either.
mrtksn 3y ago
Nukes are not that useful for stuff other than extremely destructive explosions. Besides, we have knives. I'm afraid this mindset will soon demand everything to be pre-cut in licensed facilities and make the knives illegal. This desire for censorship and restrictions is infinitely ridiculous. Instead of addressing the issues of why would someone want to hurt someone or themselves, they try to eliminate the tools. This is going to fail, maybe people in UK or in the USA might end up not knowing how things work without formal licensing but people in Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, China, Vietnam will know. This attitude can actually lead to the downfall of the western societies. WTF the computer wouldn't tell me how to cook meth? That's something that junkies do and it's not the lack of knowing how to cook it that keeps me from doing it. I'm just curious, not looking to harm myself or anybody but I'm being lectured by a computer.
- BudaDude 3y ago
  > Nukes are not that useful for stuff other than extremely destructive explosions. I would like to mention that in the Fallout series, a game that depicts a different version of history where nuclear power was widely accessible, cars and robots have their own nuclear generators. The reality is that if nuclear power was common, we would not have any problems with energy or a power grid.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Nukes and nuclear energy are different things. It’s also not a secret how to do these things, they teach it to kids. The complexities come from the engineering the device and that’s actually the secret part.
    - taeric 3y ago
      They aren't that different, all told. There is a reason IEDs are a huge safety concern. I'm failing to see how that wouldn't be worse with nuclear power sources. Or am I mistaken and you could make it so that IEDs from nuclear energy couldn't be done?
hackernewds 3y ago
what about giving all humans guns? the crossbow seems a loaded and limited example

ed_balls 3y ago

What about a crossbow with a warhead that can kill 100 people?

SoftTalker 3y ago
Sounds like something good to have if you need to make your government behave.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Carmack says in one of the subthreads on there that he's pro-second-amendment, so that tracks I suppose. But it's kinda futile, it's just the illusion of having power and self-governance, when the others have machine guns and worse.

SilverBirch 3y ago

Does this idea work at all though? Like for one, did peasants ever in history actually have crossbows and if they did, did it ever actually help them? Like to me the crossbow sounds like an expensive weapon that would likely be issued to soldiers in an army and the idea that a peasant would have one of their own seems unlikely. I don't know the history but it just doesn't sound right at all to me. Also the closest modern analogy I guess is America where everyone has a gun and the idea that those guns actually pose a threat to the US government or the hegemony of large corporations is... fanciful. The practical effect is inner city gun violence and school shootings, not some balancing effect against corporate greed. I'm just saying... if the analogy you're using to justify your position seems to be entirely wrong doesn't that kind of undermine your position? It's not obvious to me that "peasants with crossbows" is helping here.

thelastparadise 3y ago
Look up the history of guerilla warfare.