> Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too. They do, alright. I mean they do live in their world, we also live in their world. >They

> Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too. They do, alright. I mean they do live in their world, we also live in their world. >They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude. "Harm of finite magnitude" extends up to the boundaries of infinity. No mortal can cause infinite harm, so the limitation you offer... just isn't. > Wealthy people abusing a new communications channel to influence the public isn't a new risk, it's a risk as old as time. It's not irrelevant, by any means, but we do have a long history of dealing with it. The "long history of dealing with" media monopolization is a long history of defeats of the common man - press, radio, tv, internet - were all subjugated by monopolistic interests. And you think that's somehow good for the subjugated? > AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism. Ah, that was it, the little people are way too dangerous and should be put in shackles for their own good. The big bosses, on the other hand, can only do harm that "generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude". That's very soothing and all but unfortunately, both history and logic lead to the exact opposite conclusion. I'm still amused by the bold claims you make - according to you, people of unlimited power and means can only do harm of finite magnitude, while little people of no power and no means are very scary and unpredictable indeed... That could only be the worldview of the former imposed on the latter.