3 ms·
Have we considered NOT taking that risk? Given it is extremely unlikely that we will do the necessary preparation and take precautions. It’s fine to identify is
by dgellow 2mo ago
Have we considered NOT taking that risk? Given it is extremely unlikely that we will do the necessary preparation and take precautions. It’s fine to identify issues and benefits, but then you have to ask yourself why accept that gamble in behalf of the whole world
- tocs3 2mo agoWe live in a big modern world there some options that are not really available. As if we are stuck in a really wide raging river. We are not going to be going upstream regardless our desires. Saying stop I want out is not really an option.
- dgellow 2mo agoOf course it is. We do that for lots of technologies that are considered too risky, including weapons, cryptographic algorithms, substances, and way more
- throwaway_7274 2mo agoI don’t really understand this. Sometimes I see even stronger versions of this sentiment, that amount to saying, hey, it’s inevitable, so you might as well be e/acc. But you can just not do things. Societies can just not do things. They used to know this. We don’t have to admit the neoliberal Nuremberg defense of “I was just following incentives.”
- fsflover 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
- Jblx2 2mo agoHow would that work? Make a law that it is illegal to own more than X GFLOPS of computing per person? With another limit on corporations? Maybe a Computing Enforcement Agency to investigate potential violations? On a slightly different topic, why have I never heard about taxes for AI/robots? Is there a reason why people should be the only taxpayers?