It’s ironic you say: “we are playing with fire.” Playing with fire is, in large part, literally how humans have come to dominate this planet. Why stop now?
To turn your metaphor on its head, we aren’t playing with fire when we use it constructively; rather we are very carefully and thoughtfully deploying it, no doubt due to our gradual and deadly lessons with it over time. When we “play” with it (a la fireworks or neglected campfires), it wreaks rampant destruction.
Being we are basically toddlers with this new technology, I would argue the breathless speed at which it’s finding its way into our lives tells me we are not being careful or thoughtful with it.
Counterpoint: "playing with it" is the only way we have to actually master something. "Carefully and thoughtfully deploying it" only comes way after many people first extensively played with it (for any specific "it"), first because of curiosity (i.e. for shits and giggles), then for a quick buck.
Maybe because we're on the verge of being able to create fires which can actually consume the only home we have?
Playing with fire is in large part an ego and greed issue. Yes, it allows us to dominate, but at what cost?
I'd rather live a more balanced life than a greedy and ego driven life. I may not own the world, but I can be happy and sleep sound at night, and that matters.
We had nuclear weapons for almost 80 years and the world still hasn't ended. And I think that nuclear weapons are way more dangerous than Markov chains on steroids.
I can't launch a tactical nuke because somebody wronged me, but can create a disinformation campaign with the tools I have and optionally 2-3 smart, motivated individuals, for free.
Both can be equally devastating.
Or, if I want to go the extra mile, I can use the latter to create motivation for the utilization of the former. e.g. I may say that a country has WMDs, and maybe try to manufacture consent for destruction of these...
> can create a disinformation campaign with the tools I have and optionally 2-3 smart, motivated individuals, for free
You can, and it may cause unbelievably nuisance, but not to the devastating outcome of a tactical nuke. Can you prove otherwise? Russian disinformation came close, such as the 2016 election, but that was state sponsored.
> Or, if I want to go the extra mile, I can use the latter to create motivation for the utilization of the former. e.g. I may say that a country has WMDs, and maybe try to manufacture consent for destruction of these...
You cannot. It was still state's action. Not to mention that many countries had their own intelligence that no doubt had different assessment. They weren't blind. They used WMD argument as the excuse to join the US led war.
Being we are basically toddlers with this new technology, I would argue the breathless speed at which it’s finding its way into our lives tells me we are not being careful or thoughtful with it.