[narak]

Any openly available tool can be used by anyone for any purpose. The idea that we can pick and choose is ridiculous, and with the exception of rare cases, avoidance of building generally useful tools for the chance that bad actors will also use them is a losing proposition.

[reaperducer]

Any openly available tool can be used by anyone for any purpose. The idea that we can pick and choose is ridiculous

And yet there are hundreds of laws, conventions, and treaties regulating all kinds of weapons. The idea that humans can pick and choose what exists in their society is ridiculous.

[orasis]

Building a tool is an ethical choice. Technology has no inherent right to exist. This is a bad project.

[dleslie]

Technology has no rights; it is a logical abstraction describing the works of humans.

I like to think that humans have an inherint right to engage in creative work that pleases them.

[4eor0]

Police sure seem pleased thumping skulls.

Anything we can do to make it easier for them.

[dleslie]

Maybe your country should worry less about the technology and more about the people using it. You clearly have a personelle problem.

[4eor0]

Maybe we should police each other more, and technology less?

But who is making the technology?

Circles. Circles everywhere.

Perhaps you should not anthropomorphize technology.

[dleslie]

I am explicitly _not_ anthropromorphizing technology; I argued it is a logical abstraction with no rights.

[ClumsyPilot]

Anyone who has capacity to harm you, luke governments, alreafy has tools and a fat budget.

[majkinetor]

This is invalid thinking.

Bad actors can make such tool themselves (if they can't, they are not really that good) and have incentive to do that, so non existence will only slow them down. I don't care about analyzing other people for any purpose so I don't. Having this tool readily available lets me analyze myself and people I care about to protect them from bad actors and educate them in the process.

[reaperducer]

This is invalid thinking.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "invalid thinking." Can you elaborate on how a person's thoughts can be invalid?

[spoonjim]

It’s a hamfisted attempt to assert the correctness of one’s argument by fiat. It’s the grown-up “are not / am too!”

[arkitaip]

Please keep in mind that some HNers are modeling their behavior after buggy machines and bad code and that this influences their thinking and language.

[narak]

logical coherence and fallacies far pre-date computers and code

[majkinetor]

You are being overly literal I guess, there is nothing to explain.

Invalid line of thought sounds good ?

Try DDG next time.

[Ensorceled]

The sentence was unnecessary to both your point and any argument in general. Why did you include it? Why are you defending it's inclusion? Why are you now saying "google it"?