3 ms·
Sure, but it’s a bit of a strawman. Define what you think is the appropriate level of risk to society without resorting to the extremes and it becomes a more pr
by bumby 3mo ago
Sure, but it’s a bit of a strawman. Define what you think is the appropriate level of risk to society without resorting to the extremes and it becomes a more productive conversation.
Is it just short of a model that can be used for bioterrorism? Security vulnerabilities that can cripple banks? Or just undermining the current capitalist incumbents? There’s a broad spectrum
- harimau777 3mo agoI'd say something like: If you provide it to one company then you have to provide it to all companies. If you aren't comfortable with that, then either nationalize it or accept that no one gets it.
- bumby 3mo agoI can understand the sentiment, but that’s not how the govt has operated in the past. There are numerous examples of tech transfers to benefit a single company. It’s reasonably common in aerospace and health applications.
- Forgeties79 3mo agoA strawman? “Don’t resort to extremes”? It’s the example you proposed!
- bumby 3mo agoThe strawman I was referring to was the binary option of "threatening to the survival of all living species...or not". Perhaps "false dichotomy" would have been a better description. The GGP point was that this level of control has been normal when dealing with other nations. The nuclear point was that it has also previously been applied internally, so the original framing of "other nations vs us" is not particularly good. If your counterpoint is "yeah but that's ok when it's based on existential risk" that doesn't support your first point, it just reorients the framework from "external vs internal" to "risk based". If you change the goalposts to the latter, you are actively undermining your original point. That's a fine point to make, just not coherent with your original one.
- Forgeties79 3mo agoYou are far too focused on the meta of this conversation and trying to head off every possible response. This isn’t conducive to discussion. You proposed nuclear weapons as an example, that got us off on a very strange foot. That is all I was attempting to point out.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- bumby 3mo agoI’m the one who is trying to bring it back to the original point. I also brought up healthcare and aerospace. There are many examples of government limits on business that go against your thesis of “this has always happened externally and is only now being applied internally”. I literally said nuclear was an example. You apparently didn’t draw the line to the broader principle.
- Forgeties79 3mo agoI think we are past the point of productivity and should both move on. Have a good rest of your weekend mate.
- bumby 3mo agoIt is certainly difficult to have a productive conversation when someone refuses to engage in discussing their own point.