[KuriousCat]

The main problem I see with this kind of debates is treating 'humans' as a single homogeneous entity. As with all technologies in the past, there will be few humans with more access/influence and there will be a lot more who wouldn't have it. A better question to ask is, how can we ensure that agency/freedom of the people who do not have access/affordability to this technology remains intact? For instance, the rights of the Artists in case of generative AI.

[MichaelZuo]

Well first you would have to define 'agency' or 'freedom' in such a way, that excludes from its possessors, the possibility of creating new agency/freedom reducing technologies.

Which doesn't seem all that plausible philosophically or logically.

[KuriousCat]

Can you please explain your argument? I don't think I got it.

[MichaelZuo]

Which part don't you get?

[KuriousCat]

I don't see why we should be coming up with a definition of freedom/agency in the way you have suggested. People are free to create what they want to but should be constrained in their ability to impose those on others.

[MichaelZuo]

How would you 'constrain' them if they are free to create technology that bypasses or remove those same constraints?

[KuriousCat]

Deployment constraints. There is no need to constrain the development or research.