3 ms·

> Would you help someone do something which you think is bad? I wouldn’t. But this is not the question here. The question here is if I would give someone a pow

> Would you help someone do something which you think is bad? I wouldn’t. But this is not the question here. The question here is if I would give someone a powerful tool that can be used for good, for neutral or for bad things, if I believe that there is a good chance it will be used for bad things. That puts a lot of responsibility on me to get into the business of predicting bad behavior.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
> That puts a lot of responsibility on me to get into the business of predicting bad behavior. Not a ton: you don't need to come up with a numerical probability, and erring on the side of caution is just fine. That said, I think that IS the question here. If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with.
- credit_guy 1y ago
  > If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad, if only autocrats were not helped by us, they'll fall and they'll be replaced by democracy, and perhaps by crowds singing in unison Beetles' "Imagine". In reality, democracy is a very unlikely outcome of a dictator being toppled. The top 2 outcomes, by miles and miles, are 1. the dictator is replaced by another dictator and 2. the dictator is replaced by some weak pseudo-state like Somalia, Lebanon or Yemen. I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. As I said, I have no idea who is governing the UAE, but I know that it's much easier to criticize them than to come with a realistic better alternative.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad Many other places, too. Obviously it's not a universal thing: every sufficiently large group of people has fans of autocracy. There has historically been evolutionary advantages to wanting a big, strong hand to control everything. Any alternative has not had sufficient time to evolutionarily propagate through humans. The rest of your post kind of veers off-topic, so remember we're talking about individual people's decision to not work on something based on their own judgements. I don't think it's worth arguing at them that their judgements are wrongly made. Again, If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. Nobody is trying to convince you personally to change your morals. So, as long as you don't try to change theirs, there is no need to be defensive. > I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. I think a good place to start with this, would be to be less confident that you know what's best for others who are deciding whether to empower autocrats. It's much easier to criticize them and their decision, than to come with a realistic, better alternative.
    - credit_guy 1y ago
      You've got it backwards. Open AI wants to do business with the UAE. A lot of the people here think this is bad, and you are one of them. I am saying: Open AI is engaging in business that is legal as far as the US laws are involved, because the UAE are not under sanctions. We (the US) are a democracy, and the US government acts as a representative of our collective will. As a democracy we decided, through our representatives, that is ok to do business with the UAE, otherwise we'd have sanctions on them. I am ok with that, and I was pointing out that private businesses should concern themselves with doing business, and the State Department should be trusted with making the value decision if a regime is autocratic enough that the US wants to put is on its sanctions list. You think for some reason that this type of position is one of arrogance. That I should show modesty and let people, such as yourself, criticize Open AI for getting in bed with autocrats. And if myself I have no problem with autocrats, then I should just keep out of this, because nobody around here asked for my opinion. But this is very backward. When Jesus said that only those who never wronged in their life should throw a stone, one could retort that only people who never wronged should tell other people what to do with the stones they find on the street. Does that type of argument make sense to you?

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

> That puts a lot of responsibility on me to get into the business of predicting bad behavior. Not a ton: you don't need to come up with a numerical probability, and erring on the side of caution is just fine. That said, I think that IS the question here. If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with.

credit_guy 1y ago
> If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad, if only autocrats were not helped by us, they'll fall and they'll be replaced by democracy, and perhaps by crowds singing in unison Beetles' "Imagine". In reality, democracy is a very unlikely outcome of a dictator being toppled. The top 2 outcomes, by miles and miles, are 1. the dictator is replaced by another dictator and 2. the dictator is replaced by some weak pseudo-state like Somalia, Lebanon or Yemen. I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. As I said, I have no idea who is governing the UAE, but I know that it's much easier to criticize them than to come with a realistic better alternative.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad Many other places, too. Obviously it's not a universal thing: every sufficiently large group of people has fans of autocracy. There has historically been evolutionary advantages to wanting a big, strong hand to control everything. Any alternative has not had sufficient time to evolutionarily propagate through humans. The rest of your post kind of veers off-topic, so remember we're talking about individual people's decision to not work on something based on their own judgements. I don't think it's worth arguing at them that their judgements are wrongly made. Again, If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. Nobody is trying to convince you personally to change your morals. So, as long as you don't try to change theirs, there is no need to be defensive. > I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. I think a good place to start with this, would be to be less confident that you know what's best for others who are deciding whether to empower autocrats. It's much easier to criticize them and their decision, than to come with a realistic, better alternative.
  - credit_guy 1y ago
    You've got it backwards. Open AI wants to do business with the UAE. A lot of the people here think this is bad, and you are one of them. I am saying: Open AI is engaging in business that is legal as far as the US laws are involved, because the UAE are not under sanctions. We (the US) are a democracy, and the US government acts as a representative of our collective will. As a democracy we decided, through our representatives, that is ok to do business with the UAE, otherwise we'd have sanctions on them. I am ok with that, and I was pointing out that private businesses should concern themselves with doing business, and the State Department should be trusted with making the value decision if a regime is autocratic enough that the US wants to put is on its sanctions list. You think for some reason that this type of position is one of arrogance. That I should show modesty and let people, such as yourself, criticize Open AI for getting in bed with autocrats. And if myself I have no problem with autocrats, then I should just keep out of this, because nobody around here asked for my opinion. But this is very backward. When Jesus said that only those who never wronged in their life should throw a stone, one could retort that only people who never wronged should tell other people what to do with the stones they find on the street. Does that type of argument make sense to you?