[hackerlight]

> If I want to use a hammer on a screw, that's my call - if it works or not is not the hammer's "choice".

If I want to use a nuke, that's my call and I am the one to blame if I misuse it.

Obviously this is a terrible analogy, but so is yours. The hammer analogy mostly works for now, but AI alignment people know that these systems are going to greatly improve in competency, if not soon then in 10 years, which motivates this nascent effort we're seeing.

Like all tools, the default state is to be amoral, and it will enable good and bad actors to do good and bad things more effectively. That's not a problem if offense and defense are symmetric. But there is no reason to think it will be symmetric. We have regulations against automatic high-capacity machine guns because the asymmetry is too large, i.e. too much capability for lone bad actors with an inability to defend against it. If AI offense turns out to be a lot easier than defense, then we have a big problem, and your admirable ideological tilt towards openness will fail in the real world.

While this remains theoretical, you must at least address what it is that your detractors are talking about.

I do however agree that the guardrails shouldn't be determined by a small group of people, but I see that as a side effect of AI happening so fast.

[kriops]

Property rights. In theory you can use your nuke as much as you'd like. The problem in practice is that it is impossible to use a nuke without negatively affecting other people and /or their property. There's also the question of wether you're challenbging the state's monopoly on violence (i.e., national security) which will never apply to AI. Any AI, including futuristic super-AI's, can not be legitimately challenged with those same arguments. Because they, much like a hammer, are tools.

In conclusion, the nuke analogy is not a valid retort to the hammer analogy. And as a matter of fact, it fails to address the central point, much like your copmment accuses its parent comment of.

[DirkH]

It never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly good we are as a species at believing that if we create something that is smarter than us in every way possible (e.g. super-AI) then it still will not in any way pose a threat to our (or government's) monopoly on violence.

It's the same sort of wishful hubristic thinking I think that makes some people believe that if an advanced species arrived from outer space that is far smarter than us (e.g. like a super-AI) then we still would not be at any kind of risk.

[hackerlight]

> it is impossible to use a nuke without negatively affecting other people

Should I be allowed to own C4 explosives and machine guns? Because I can use C4 explosives in a way that doesn't harm other people by simply detonating it on my private property. I am confused about what the limiting principle is supposed to be here. Do we just allow people to have access to technology of arbitrary power as long as there exists >= 1 non-nefarious use-case of that power, and then hope for the best?

> There's also the question of wether you're challenbging the state's monopoly on violence (i.e., national security) which will never apply to AI.

This misses my point about offense vs defense asymmetry (although really it's Connor Leahy's point). I'm not saying that AGI+person can overtake a government. I'm saying that AGI+person may end up like machine gun+person in the set of nefarious asymmetric capabilities it enables.

[lannisterstark]

>Should I be allowed to own C4 explosives and machine guns?

as someone who can do both...lol. You thought this was some gotcha? "Please sir can I have more" begging from the govt is really weird when many, many people already do.

Yes. Why not? You can already blow up Tannerite and own automatic firearms in many nations.

This is a disingenuous argument. People who willingly give up what should be their civil rights are a weird breed.

>Do we just allow people to have access to technology of arbitrary power as long as there exists >= 1 non-nefarious use-case of that power, and then hope for the best?

Yes, that's what we do with computers, phones etc. Scamming elderly people has become such a wide bad use case with computers, phones etc since their invention.

We should ban them all!

[MeImCounting]

Yes you should be allowed to own C4 and machine guns. And you can. Because you can use them in a way that doesnt hurt other people, we as a society allow that.

[fennecbutt]

From an international perspective, all I'm hearing is red tailed hawk.

[MeImCounting]

Many Nordic and Scandinavian countries allow citizens to own full auto weapons as well as others around the world.

[asadotzler]

owning and using are different. try that on the DC Mall and see how well it goes buddy

[MeImCounting]

Yes because that would be hurting people. Theres no shooting/explosives range on the national mall correct?

People use these things all the time without hurting people.