4 ms·
I'm sorry, but when the has it ever been the case that you can just say "no" to the world developing a new technology? You might as well say we can prevent clim
by Nasrudith 2y ago
I'm sorry, but when the has it ever been the case that you can just say "no" to the world developing a new technology? You might as well say we can prevent climate change by just saying no to the outcome!
- estebank 2y agoWe no longer use asbestos as a flame flame retardant in houses. We no longer use chemicals harmful to the ozone layer on spray cans. We no longer use lead in gasoline. We figured those things were bad, and changed what we did. If evidence is available ahead of time that something is harmful, it shouldn't be controversial to avoid widespread adoption.
- josefritzishere 2y agoI don't think it is safe to assume the use patterns of tangible things extend to intangible things; nor the patterns of goods to that of services. I just see this as a conclusory leap.
- bombcar 2y agoNone of those things were said "no" to before they were used and in a wide-spread manner. The closest might be nuclear power, we know we can do it, we did it, but lots of places said no to it, and further developments have vastly slowed down.
- estebank 2y agoIn none of those did we know about the adverse effects. Those were observed afterwards, and it would have taken longer to know if they hadn't been adopted. But that doesn't invalidate the idea that we have followed "if something bad, collectively don't use it" at various points in time.
- Aloisius 2y agoWe were well aware of the adverse effects of tetraethyl lead before lead gasoline was first sold. The man who invented it got lead poisoning during its development, multiple people died of lead poisoning in a pilot plant manufacturing it and public health and medical authorities warned against prior to it being available for sale to the general public.
- rat87 2y agoAnd for nuclear power many would say that rejecting it was a huge mistake
- tw1984 2y ago[flagged]
- rurp 2y agoThis happens in many ways with potentially catastrophic tech. There are many formal agreements and strong norms against building ever more lethal nuclear arsenals or existentially dangerous gain of function research. The current system is far from perfect, the world could literally be destroyed today based on the actions of a handful of people, but it's the best we have come up with so far. If we as a society keep developing potential existential threats to ourselves without mitigating them then we are destined for disaster eventually.
- realce 2y agoJohn C Lilly had a concept called the "bad program" that was like an internal, natural, subconscious antithetical force that lives in us all. It seduces or lures the individual into harming themselves one way or another - in his case it "tricked" him into taking a vitamin injection improperly, leading to a stroke, even though he knew how to administer the shot expertly. At some level, there's a disaster-seeking function inside us all acting as an evolutionary propellant. You might make an argument that "AI" is an evolutionary embodiment of our conscious minds that's designed to escape these more subconscious trappings.