4 ms·

It seems like you are unfairly singling out one particular advance in technology among many which could be equally responsible for killing or surveillance. Fur

It seems like you are unfairly singling out one particular advance in technology among many which could be equally responsible for killing or surveillance. Furthermore, since this also opens some very positive perspectives, why not try and work together towards them? Whatever well-intentioned people do, the ill-intentioned would still have researched this and devoted it maybe more exclusively towards evil purposes.

pfisch 12y ago
That is ridiculous. This is clearly a key advance needed for automated surveillance and autonomous robotics. That is like saying that the people who were working on nuclear fission are as responsible as the people who invented the process for creating the metal casing of the nuclear weapons used in Japan. "Whatever well-intentioned people do, the ill-intentioned would still have researched this and devoted it maybe more exclusively towards evil purposes." That is like saying you can do whatever you want because if you didn't do it someone else would. Maybe bad people would do this eventually, but maybe they wouldn't. I can tell you that most if not all of the people who want to use these technologies to do awful things are completely incapable of developing these technologies themselves. They have to get people like us to make them. There is no question that computer vision is being used for military purposes and any advance will definitely be used by the CIA. It is completely ridiculous to think otherwise. Sure this does have some positive uses, but the very clear danger that is posed by advanced AI and AI imaging techniques really makes this a field that should not be pursued. There is a high chance that this tech will have a net negative effect on the world. There are many other techs that are much less dangerous to pursue that will provide positive benefits.
- nl 12y ago
  Your assumption that automated surveillance and autonomous robotics is wholly negative needs to be tested. If surveillance was entirely automated one could argue that it would be less likely to be corrupted by political or social influences. One could argue the other way too, but I'm certainly not persuaded that it is more negative than manual surveillance. David Brin has written on this and related topics extensively[1], and I think there are more subtleties on the topic than it is popular to acknowledge. As for autonomous robots: I think there are plenty of dangerous tasks that could be given to more intelligent robots, and I'm fairly sure this would be a net good. Additionally there are many fields where this technology will be used that are almost completely positive. Medical imagery, search and rescue, and many fields of science are obvious applications. Like most scientific fields, this undoubtedly has both positive and negative outcomes. How those are judged probably says as much about a person's political and social views as it does about the absolute moral view of the technology. [1] http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html
- nl 12y ago
  I have another response to this post too, but I feel strongly enough about it to add this: I believe technology can be a force of good in the world. The fact that evil people do evil things with it does not negate the potential beauty of a world of abundance. Fear of the negative impacts of technology will not promote progress towards a better world. TL;DR: I believe in techno-utopia.

pfisch 12y ago

That is ridiculous. This is clearly a key advance needed for automated surveillance and autonomous robotics. That is like saying that the people who were working on nuclear fission are as responsible as the people who invented the process for creating the metal casing of the nuclear weapons used in Japan. "Whatever well-intentioned people do, the ill-intentioned would still have researched this and devoted it maybe more exclusively towards evil purposes." That is like saying you can do whatever you want because if you didn't do it someone else would. Maybe bad people would do this eventually, but maybe they wouldn't. I can tell you that most if not all of the people who want to use these technologies to do awful things are completely incapable of developing these technologies themselves. They have to get people like us to make them. There is no question that computer vision is being used for military purposes and any advance will definitely be used by the CIA. It is completely ridiculous to think otherwise. Sure this does have some positive uses, but the very clear danger that is posed by advanced AI and AI imaging techniques really makes this a field that should not be pursued. There is a high chance that this tech will have a net negative effect on the world. There are many other techs that are much less dangerous to pursue that will provide positive benefits.

nl 12y ago
Your assumption that automated surveillance and autonomous robotics is wholly negative needs to be tested. If surveillance was entirely automated one could argue that it would be less likely to be corrupted by political or social influences. One could argue the other way too, but I'm certainly not persuaded that it is more negative than manual surveillance. David Brin has written on this and related topics extensively[1], and I think there are more subtleties on the topic than it is popular to acknowledge. As for autonomous robots: I think there are plenty of dangerous tasks that could be given to more intelligent robots, and I'm fairly sure this would be a net good. Additionally there are many fields where this technology will be used that are almost completely positive. Medical imagery, search and rescue, and many fields of science are obvious applications. Like most scientific fields, this undoubtedly has both positive and negative outcomes. How those are judged probably says as much about a person's political and social views as it does about the absolute moral view of the technology. [1] http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html
nl 12y ago
I have another response to this post too, but I feel strongly enough about it to add this: I believe technology can be a force of good in the world. The fact that evil people do evil things with it does not negate the potential beauty of a world of abundance. Fear of the negative impacts of technology will not promote progress towards a better world. TL;DR: I believe in techno-utopia.