6 ms·
> Can we agree that people should not be able to unilaterally take existential risks with the future of humanity without the consent of humanity This has nothi
by trevyn 3y ago
> Can we agree that people should not be able to unilaterally take existential risks with the future of humanity without the consent of humanity
This has nothing to do with should. There are at the very least a handful of people who can, today, unilaterally take risks with the future of humanity without the consent of humanity. I do not see any reason to think that will change in the near future. If these people can build something that they believe is the equivalent of nuclear weapons, you better believe they will.
As they say, the cat is already out of the bag.
- ben_w 3y agoHmm. So, wealth isn't distributed evenly, and computers of any specific capacity are getting cheaper (not Moore's Law any more, IIRC, but still getting cheaper). If there's a threshold that requires X operations, that currently costs Y dollars, and say only a few thousand individuals (and more corporations) can afford that. Halve the cost, either by cheaper computers or by algorithmic reduction of the number of operations needed, and you much more than double the number of people who can do it.