|
|
|
|
|
|
by hackerlight
834 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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!