3 ms·

Disturbed loners probably pose an exponentially increasing threat to society

3 points by pressentiment 1mo ago

FrankWilhoit 1mo ago
Obviously the only approach is prevention: but how many of them represent prevention that was not even attempted, and how many represent prevention that was attempted and backfired?
- PaulHoule 1mo ago
  I think the Unabomber must be the index case for this sort of thing, a loner who did resort to terrorism, but the ideology in his manifesto was not particularly unusual, like a lot of people believe similar things but never blow anybody up. He was a smart guy but it took him decades to build the skills to construct bombs that could kill people reliably. I am more than a little skeptical that a nobody could make a world-killing virus with AI but if you were concerned about that you'd like to see the mRNA vaccine machine revved up and ready to go in any emergency and look for ways to preempt the political reaction that we'd expect if there was another pandemic. (e.g. the breakdown of trust is more dangerous than the disease!)
  - oliculipolicula 1mo ago
    Finally, 2 of the more serious thinkers (of the past, at least) left on HN get together to discuss next nearest neighbors to discussions I'm interested in .. Nearest neighbour discussions would be like 1) do individuals have a right to pre-emptive self defense? 2) do groups (especially ones with thoughtfully-violent champions that represent them but are not card carrying members. Like the proverbial dogs of mainstream Athenian philos)? 3) do people who share an ideology? If they are common? if they are uncommon? 4) how to begin uh, quantifying these rights? (Then one can start quantifying the complementary responsibilities too!) More interesting than trolley problems imho. And that's not even mentioning that Ellul (coined think globally, act locally) was not a run-of-the-mill institutionalist academic. And if you are inclined to disagree, can I just point out that he's no nepo baby? And probably less entitled, not to mention less disturbed than all 3 of us >Perhaps the good life of Bordeaux is to blame after all https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467604270259 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467604270259 https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_chapter_monograph/j.ctvh4zdh4.9?seq=4 https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_chapter_monograph/j.ctvh4zd...
    - FrankWilhoit 27d ago
      All of your questions assume that prevention has already failed (where never-being-attempted is a category of failure). In this, you are in numerous, perhaps effectively universal, company. Humans are born mad; the purpose of education (a concept that goes beyond, and before, any kind of school) is to heal them. I was taught: an unpleasant process, but looking back, I wouldn't have missed it. Looking around me, I see people who not only were not taught but cannot conceive of the nature or purpose of such a thing.

3 points by pressentiment 1mo ago

Obviously the only approach is prevention: but how many of them represent prevention that was not even attempted, and how many represent prevention that was attempted and backfired?

PaulHoule 1mo ago
I think the Unabomber must be the index case for this sort of thing, a loner who did resort to terrorism, but the ideology in his manifesto was not particularly unusual, like a lot of people believe similar things but never blow anybody up. He was a smart guy but it took him decades to build the skills to construct bombs that could kill people reliably. I am more than a little skeptical that a nobody could make a world-killing virus with AI but if you were concerned about that you'd like to see the mRNA vaccine machine revved up and ready to go in any emergency and look for ways to preempt the political reaction that we'd expect if there was another pandemic. (e.g. the breakdown of trust is more dangerous than the disease!)
- oliculipolicula 1mo ago
  Finally, 2 of the more serious thinkers (of the past, at least) left on HN get together to discuss next nearest neighbors to discussions I'm interested in .. Nearest neighbour discussions would be like 1) do individuals have a right to pre-emptive self defense? 2) do groups (especially ones with thoughtfully-violent champions that represent them but are not card carrying members. Like the proverbial dogs of mainstream Athenian philos)? 3) do people who share an ideology? If they are common? if they are uncommon? 4) how to begin uh, quantifying these rights? (Then one can start quantifying the complementary responsibilities too!) More interesting than trolley problems imho. And that's not even mentioning that Ellul (coined think globally, act locally) was not a run-of-the-mill institutionalist academic. And if you are inclined to disagree, can I just point out that he's no nepo baby? And probably less entitled, not to mention less disturbed than all 3 of us >Perhaps the good life of Bordeaux is to blame after all https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467604270259 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467604270259 https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_chapter_monograph/j.ctvh4zdh4.9?seq=4 https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_chapter_monograph/j.ctvh4zd...
  - FrankWilhoit 27d ago
    All of your questions assume that prevention has already failed (where never-being-attempted is a category of failure). In this, you are in numerous, perhaps effectively universal, company. Humans are born mad; the purpose of education (a concept that goes beyond, and before, any kind of school) is to heal them. I was taught: an unpleasant process, but looking back, I wouldn't have missed it. Looking around me, I see people who not only were not taught but cannot conceive of the nature or purpose of such a thing.