[kache_]

The one unwavering thing about technology is that it doesn't stop advancing, and we can't use it responsibly.

The good news is that we've been going through rapid, rapid tech advancements the past 50 years and we're still here.

[mckirk]

The thing I don't like about these 'well people have been complaining about this forever' arguments is that, it's entirely possible to have a) people pointing at an issue for a long time and b) still have that issue get progressively, objectively worse over time.

There's that example of people pointing out smartphones might be bad for children, then someone counters with 'well thirty years ago people complained about children reading too much instead of playing outside', with the implication being: adults of all ages will find some fault with newer generations, and not to worry so much.

But just because it is true that adults will probably always worry about 'new, evil things' corrupting the youth, this does not mean that the 'new, evil things' aren't getting _objectively more dangerous_ over time. Today adults would be happy if children still had the attention span and motivation necessary to read a book. They'd be happy if they themselves still had it, actually.

Graphing the progress of a sinking ship and pointing out that the downwards gradient has been stable for a while now and we should therefore be okay is generally not a useful extrapolation, I would say.

[cupofpython]

>Graphing the progress of a sinking ship and pointing out that the downwards gradient has been stable for a while now and we should therefore be okay is generally not a useful extrapolation,

I like this analogy. I've had similar thoughts for a while too. Granted I also saw some research that society has been objectively getting better in a lot of areas people think is getting worse (like violence, specifically police abuse) compared to the past. theoretically this is because we have a lot more information now than before, so smaller occurrences are generating a larger impression.

that said, I still very much agree with your point and that it is very applicable to specific individualized issues. Saying that people have been concerned for a while and nothing bad has happened yet is accurate for the situation where nothing bad will happen, AND the situation that it was bad then and is worse now, AND the situation where we are approaching a tipping point / threshold where the bad will start.

[sitkack]

> rapid tech advancements the past 50 years and we're still here

This is a tautology. At some point the music stops and you aren't here to make the argument that we are still here.

[cupofpython]

not entirely tautological. the probability that something bad happens tomorrow if we do X today for the first time is very different than the probability that something bad happens tomorrow if we do X today GIVEN weve been doing X every day for 50 years.

It is still insufficient to say nothing bad will happen, of course

[sitkack]

Thats not the argument. The one you are making is the same one people make when they conflate weather and climate.

[cupofpython]

Conditional probability applies to many things

[andruby]

> The one unwavering thing about technology is that it doesn't stop advancing, and we can't use it responsibly.

While I think that is true in general, I am optimistic that we've seen at least one technology where we were able to constraint ourselves from self-destruction: nuclear weapons.

Of course, nuclear weapons tech is not in reach of individuals or corporations, which means there are only a handful of players in this game-theory setting.