That is a truth but not the truth. By framing guns as a murder technology, you ignore that they are also a self defense technology, equalizing technology, or an

That is a truth but not the truth. By framing guns as a murder technology, you ignore that they are also a self defense technology, equalizing technology, or any other set of valid frames. My point was that guns can be used for murder, in the same way that AI can be used to influence or surveil, but guns are also what you use to arrest people, fight oppressors and tyrants, and protect your property. Fists, knives, bows and arrows, poison, bombs, tanks, fighter jets, and drones are all forms of weapons. The march of technology is inevitable, and it's important not to be on the losing side of it. What the technology is capable of us less interesting then who has access to it and the power disparity that it creates. The authors argument is that AI is a (1) high leverage technology (2) in the hands of oligarchs. My argument is that the fact that it is a high leverage technology is not as interesting, meaningful, or important as the existence of oligarchs who do not answer to any regulatory body because they have bought and paid for it. The author is arguing that a particular weapon is bad, but failing to argue that we are in a class war that we are losing badly. The author is focusing on one weapon being used to wage our class war, instead of arguing about the cost of losing the classwar. It is not AI de-humanizing us, but wealth disparity that is de-humanizing us, because there is nothing forcing the extremely wealthy to treat others with dignity. AI is not robbing people of dignity, ultra wealthy people are robbing people of dignity using AI. AI is not dehumanizing people. Ultra wealthy people are using AI to dehumanize people. Those are different arguments with different implications and prescriptions on how to act or what to do. AI is bad is a different argument than oligarchs are bad.