3 ms·
Every time this argument is brought up, it reminds me of "cancel culture". Argument: X is good for Z but makes it easier to commit Y, so we must ban/limit X.
by behnamoh 11mo ago
Every time this argument is brought up, it reminds me of "cancel culture".
Argument: X is good for Z but makes it easier to commit Y, so we must ban/limit X.
What happens in reality: X is banned, and those who actually want to use it to do Y still find a way to use X. Meanwhile, the society is deprived of all the Z.
- ares623 11mo agoIn this case though, banning X takes away a lot of the financials of X being possible or improving further. Sure, X-1 will continue to exist in perpetuity, but it will be frozen and allows society to catch up to mitigate Y more effectively. EDIT: nevermind the fact that being able to do Z is not at all a fair trade for getting X. But that’s just me.
- a-dub 11mo agoin this case a company that develops X is actively investing in understanding the Y problem and sharing their findings with the general public towards development of an X that doesn't have a Y problem?
- int_19h 11mo agoAnthropic fairly consistently advocates for the same broad approach to such problems: have the government tightly regulate AI. It is, of course, a pure coincidence that this is exactly the approach that would kill off any open competition and consolidate the market around a few established companies that can afford to deal with such regulatory frameworks, Anthropic being one of them.