3 ms·
Who gets to define ‘potentially dangerous’? Isn’t that the core issue in the first place?
by MichaelZuo 2y ago
Who gets to define ‘potentially dangerous’?
Isn’t that the core issue in the first place?
- vouaobrasil 2y agoWe should have a discussion and debate about it. The point is, IF people decide that it IS dangerous, then there is no mechanism to stop it.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoHuh? There are well known mechanisms after that point. Such as a resolution of the UN Security Council.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoReally? Let's say the bottom 70% of earners in the U.S. decided that AI was dangerous and its development should be stopped. Do you think the top 30% would allow that?
- MichaelZuo 2y agoHow does this relate to the Security Council or any other known mechanisms that operate in the world?
- vouaobrasil 2y agoBecause those mechanisms don't work to stop most of the dangerous economic activities.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoThey would work as mechanisms after the point when the world’s nations agree to it… Like I said…? Clearly the world’s nations aren’t guaranteed to share your views…
- vouaobrasil 2y agoMy entire point is that we don't have mechanisms to protect the people. I was not referring to the power structure of the nations, or those with the most money.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoThis seems to be going in circles… Who gets to define “protect the people”…?
- vouaobrasil 2y agoPerhaps we should hold a referendum: destroy AI?
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWho has the authority to hold any referendum for the entire planet? Dodging the core issue over and over again isn’t going to lead anywhere…