5 ms·

Well I am going to bluntly disagree, sorry. I am dismissive. But in the end, I will be right and you will be wrong. That's the pattern in technology. 1. Some t

• maxbond 3y ago
  Your step four is incomplete. In addition to accepting a new normal, we put limits on technology and address the harms. We didn't roll over and accept, say, the destruction of the ozone layer. We put restrictions on the use of CFCs, and we invented new refrigerants that were much less harmful. Though there has been some recent backsliding due to rogue emitters, these measures were effective at stopping and eventually reversing the degradation of the ozone layer. Some more examples include unleaded gasoline, breaks without asbestos, paint and cosmetics that don't include heavy metals, light bulbs that are much more efficient, etc. We've also figured out how to make fuels that don't contain all much sulfur, thus avoiding issues with acid rain. This is an attitude I see on HN a lot. Technological innovation is seen as unstoppable and all powerful - until it's time to innovate new ways to address the problems we've created, and then there's apparently no possibility of coming up with innovative solutions. We're to accept ourselves as passive actors, caught up in the currents of history, with no agency to alter course. An example that I find haunting is OceanGate and Stockton Rush. Rush was all for being innovative when it came to novel submersible construction. But when his engineers wanted to inspect the hull for degradation - can't be done, the hull is too thick to scan. You might expect someone who views themselves as a fearless innovator to see that as an opportunity to develop a new methodology or technology. But Rush was only a fearless innovator when it pleased him, and so he took himself and his customers to their deaths. Frankly I think this attitude is a bad excuse, and not one that society will tolerate forever. This is the path to crippling regulations and trust busting. We can't just foist our externalities on the rest of society forever and not expect them to eventually decide we're incapable of self regulating.
  • Gunax 3y ago
    I didn't write this because it was too long already, but it depends on the technology. I agree that CFC bans are a good example of when something was done. But I can also name many situations in which nothing effective was done. And even in the face of overwhelming effort to halt it, the resistance amounted to little difference. The difference all comes down to the technology. So, my argument is that there are some technologies which can be addressed, and others which cannot. Solveable problems tend towards those with few decision makers, low incentive to defect, adherence can be monitored, costs are internal, and where the problem exists at top-level of large organizations. Unsolveable problems tend towards those with lots of decision makers, high incentives to defect, difficult to detect violators, costs are external, and the problem is personal. CFCs fall more in the the former--there just aren't that many CFC manufacturers (apparently 18 companies accounted for > 99% of production). Consider for a second, an alternate world where everyone builds their own refrigerants in their garage, and each individual decided whether to use CFCs or an alternative. Do you think we would have solved CFCs by now? This particular issue is very much the latter. The tech is already out in the open. The decision to use it responsibility or not is left to individuals. You mentioned foisting externalities on the rest of society. I agree that this is happening. And I agree that society will not stand for it. But my point is not that society is going to accept it, it's that society cannot do anything about it. Oh, people will shout and stomp and raise hell. Hearing will be had. People will be lambasted in front of congress. Voters will decry politicians to do something. And efforts will be attempted. But in the end, it will all be for naught. I realize this is a doomer outlook. Please don't mistake what I am saying as an endorsement.
    • maxbond 3y ago
      I understand you are not offering an endorsement, and I appreciate that we can disagree without being opposed. I think our disagreement is quite narrow. I subscribe to the view that everything in history is contingent and nothing is inevitable. I gather you believe some things are inevitable, and that the particulars of a technology might make certain things inevitable. Thank you for elaborating. Sometimes we're not able to mitigate the harms of technology; fossil fuels come to mind. But I would argue this has next to nothing to do with fuel technology. It's because there are power people in our society who have successfully slow walked a transition to alternatives. But they haven't managed to stop it altogether - solar, wind, and EVs are seeing widespread deployment. The tech industry has been able to do this to some extent, but I don't think they have nearly the political capital of the fossil fuel industry. We're seeing increasing calls in the US to regulate the tech industry and to break up the larger companies. While the two parties aren't able to cooperate on nearly any legislation at this time, this attitude is bipartisan. The EU has already begun to regulate the tech industry. (I can't comment usefully on the rest of the world.) I do agree that the properties you enumerated make a problem easier or more difficult to solve, and that there's no way to stop people from making deepfake porn altogether. But that doesn't mean there isn't anything to be done about it, even if you and I might not be smart enough or positioned correctly to understand what that might be. My goal is to convince people not to give up on the idea that something could be done, and not to become entrenched in a certain position. Eg, if someone doesn't like that X responded by disallowing searches, I don't want to have yet another argument about whether or not this is a free speech issue. I want to hear that person offering a critique I haven't heard before, asking interesting questions, suggesting bad or partly formed ideas about what to do differently. And I don't want to see the rest of us start a flamewar beneath their comment, I really to see the rest of us pointing out weaknesses in a proposed solution and how we might address them. I want to see this community being creative and constructive about this, and I believe that really could make a difference. If we set aside doomerism, the worst thing that can happen is that we're wrong. That's not so bad; let's chance it.