3 ms·
Definitely less harmful if only the elites have it. It doesn't make them harder to kill, but it reduces proliferation. And "elites" per se isn't correlated with
by FeepingCreature 2y ago
Definitely less harmful if only the elites have it. It doesn't make them harder to kill, but it reduces proliferation. And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war.
Generally speaking if you think most of the danger of any technology comes from accidents, you want fewer people to have it and don't care too much which ones it is, though it'd be preferable if they had a lot to lose.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago> And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war. Even if you trust your own government, which I would suggest is misguided (the known propaganda programs that have come out of the DOD alone should be enough to dispel this trust), in a world where only the regulating authorities have access to GenAI, the GRU and the PLA are going to have access to it too. This idea that the authorities who would control GenAI wouldn’t maliciously deploy it against you is a fantasy.
- FeepingCreature 2y agoIt's not like me having AI is gonna keep the GRU from using it. I'd rather only the GRU have AI; it reduces risk. The point is not that only the good people should have it, the point is that who has it is less important than as few people have it as possible.
- slaveurit 2y ago[flagged]
- sfink 2y ago> And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war. Only if you're looking at the more obvious but wrong culture war. Elites from both "sides" have more in common with each other than with the rest of humanity. We just don't notice the perspective they're pushing nearly as much because we're not being spoonfed the debate and rage-bait as we are with the left vs right conflict.