27 ms·
its the same as banning knives because they can be used to hurt people. we shouldn't ban tools.
by kyriakos 10mo ago
its the same as banning knives because they can be used to hurt people. we shouldn't ban tools.
- instagraham 10mo agowith that analogy, OP's solution is akin to banning the use of knives to harm people, as opposed to banning the knife itself
- kyriakos 10mo agoIf I undestood correctly he's unsharpening knives.
- pentaphobe 10mo agoOr making knives that turn into overcooked noodles if you try to use them on anything except vegetables and acceptable meats
- kyriakos 10mo agoand who decides if I want to use a knife to cut mushrooms instead? see where I am going, there are (or could exist) legit cases when you need to use it in a non-standard way, one that the model authors didn't anticipate.
- blackbear_ 10mo agoBut we do ban tools sometimes: you can't bring a knife to a concert, for good reason.
- ben_w 10mo agoIn this case, image generation and editing AI is a tool which we managed just fine with until three years ago, and where the economic value of that tool remains extremely questionable despite it being a remarkable improvement in the state of the art. As a propaganda tool it seems quite effective, but for that it's gone from "woo free-speech" to "oh no epistemic collapse".
- pentaphobe 10mo ago> we shouldn't ban tools When I see the old BuT FrEe SpEeCH argument repurposed to impinge civil rights I start warming to the idea of banning tools. Alternately "Chemical weapons don't kill people, people with chemical weapons kill people"
- kyriakos 10mo agoNot really, its like banning chemistry sets cause they may be used to create chemical weapons.
- pentaphobe 9mo agoNot sure the comparison works when it does all the work for you I've had very little success mumbling "you are an expert chemist..." to test tubes and raw materials.