[jacquesm]

Let's not. Seriously. I absolutely love François and have used his work extensively. But looking around me at the social impact of AI I am really not convinced that this is what the world needs right now and that if we can stave off the turning point for another decade or two that humanity will likely benefit from that. The last thing we need is to inject yet another instability into a planet that is already fighting existential crisis on a number of fronts.

[thatguy0900]

It doesn't matter what should or should not happen. Technology will continue to race forward at breakneck speed while everyone involved pats each other on the back for making a bunch of money before the consequences hit

[bgwalter]

The Iranian nuclear program disagrees. There could be treaties and the analogue of the IAEA for "AI".

[nessbot]

technology doesn't just advance itself

[bnchrch]

No, but one thing is certain, in large human systems you can only redirect greed, you can't stop it.

[lo_zamoyski]

This is true. We have a choice...in principle.

But in practice, it's like stopping an arms race.

[hollerith]

Which arms race? The nuclear arms race of the Cold War? That one got stopped.

[thatguy0900]

It's hard to say the nuclear arms race is stopped when the US actively bombed a countries nuclear processing plants recently, and the US is also talking about building the Golden dome.

[alex_duf]

If the incentive is there, the technology will advance. I hear "we need to slow down the progress of technology", but that's misunderstanding _why_ it progresses. I'm assuming the slow down camp really need to look into what's the incentive to slow down.

Personally I don't think it's possible at this stage. The cat's out of the bag (this new class of tools are working) the economic incentive is way too strong.