[yazzku]

Microsoft is not "reasonable people". Having this behind closed corporate walls is the worst possible outcome.

The nuclear example isn't really a counter-argument. If only one nation had access to them, every other nation would automatically be subjugated to them. If the nuclear balance works, it's because multiple super powers have access to those weapons and international treaties regulate their use (as much as North Korea likes to demo practice rounds on state TV.) Also the technology isn't secret; it's access to resources and again, international treaties, that prevent its proliferation.

Same thing with CRISPR. Again, there are scientific standards that regulate its use. It being open or not doesn't really matter to its proliferation.

I agree there are cases where being open is not necessarily the best strategy. I don't think your examples are particularly good, though.

[consumer451]

I think we may have very different definitions of the word reasonable.

I mean it in the classic sense.[0]

Do I love corporate hegemony? Heck no.

Could there be less reasonable stewards of extremely powerful tools? Heck yes.

An example might be a group of people who are so blinded by ideology that they would work to create tools which 100x the work of grifters and propagandists, and then say... hey, not my problem, I was just following my pure ideology bro.

A basic example of being reasonable might be revoking access to someone running a paypal scam syndicate which sends countless custom tailored and unique emails to paypal users. How would Open Assistant deal with this issue?

[0]

  1. having sound judgement; fair and sensible.
    based on good sense.

  2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

[yazzku]

> and then say... hey, not my problem, I was just following my pure ideology bro.

That's basically the definition of Google and Facebook, which go about their business taking no responsibility for the damage they cause. As for Microsoft, 'fair' and 'moderate' are not exactly their brand either considering their history of failed and successful attempts to brutally squash competition. If you're saying that they'd be fair in censoring the "right" content, then you're just saying you share their bias.

> A basic example of being reasonable might be revoking access to someone running a paypal scam syndicate which sends countless custom tailored and unique emails to paypal users. How would Open Assistant deal with this issue?

I'm not exactly sure how Open Assistant would deal, or if it even needs to deal, with this. You'd send the cops and send those motherfuckers back to the hellhole that spawned them. Scams are illegal regardless of what tools you use to go about it. If it's not Open Assistant, the scammers will find something else.

Your argument is basically that we should ban/moderate the proliferation of tools and technology. I'm not sure that's very effective when it comes to software. I think the better strategy is to develop the open alternative fast before society is subjugated to the corporate version, even if it does give the scammers a slight edge in the short term. If you wait for the law to catch up and regulate these companies, it's going to take another 20 years like the GDPR.

[consumer451]

> Your argument is basically that we should ban/moderate the proliferation of tools and technology. I'm not sure that's very effective when it comes to software.

No, my argument is that we as individuals shouldn't be in a rush to create free and open tools which will be used for evil, in addition to their beneficial use cases.

FOSS often takes a lot of individual contributions. People should be really thoughtful about these things now that the implications of their contributions will have much more direct and dire effects on our civilization. This is not PDFjs or Audacity that we are talking about. The stakes are much higher now. Are people really thinking this through?

If anything, it would great if we as individuals acted responsibility to avoid major shit shows and the aftermath of gov regulation.

[yazzku]

Ok, yeah, maybe I'll take my latter statement back. Ideally things are developed at the pace you describe and under the scrutiny of society. There are people thinking this through -- EDRI and a bunch of other organizations -- just probably not corporations like Microsoft. In practice, though, we are likely to see corporations roll out chat-based incantations of search engines and assistants, followed by an ethical shit show, followed by mild regulation 20 years later.