[SquirrelOnFire]

Speed of development of something important isn't necessarily good. Humans are bad at absorbing a lot of change at once and it takes time to recognize and mitigate second-order effects. There's plenty of benefit to the systems that disruptors operate within (society) to not moving as fast as possible... of course since our economic systems don't factor in externalities, we've instead turned all of society into a commons.

[nradov]

People said the same thing about the printing press. When you look across human history it's tough to make a moral case that slowing down technology development was ever a net positive. We can't reliably predict or prevent the problems anyway and it's pointless to even try. Just move forward and deal with the actual problems (which are usually different from the expected problems) as they arise.

[BurningFrog]

The printing press was a main reason behind the reformation and the extremely bloody Thirty Year War. Because now people could read bibles themselves.

On balance I'm sure that was very useful progress, but millions of people also died in the resulting wars.

[yoyohello13]

I don’t really disagree with you. I think there really is no stopping progress. For better or worse, it’s happening and there ain’t no slowing down.

But, I wish people would shut up about the printing press in these discussions already. AI disrupting literally everyone’s job at the same time is not the same as a printing technology disrupting the very niche profession of scribe. Or electric lamps putting some lamp lighters out of work.

[nradov]

Everyone? I think HN users sometimes forget that the world isn't just software. There is no immediate prospect of AI disrupting much blue-collar work. We're going to need huge upgrades to the electrical grid and someone has to install all the new transmission lines. I doubt that we'll see a robot that can do the work in our lifetimes.

[bix6]

Slowing oil would've been a net positive given how unsustainable it is and all the negative externalities it forces onto society.

[nradov]

Nah. The alternative to oil was coal, or firewood, or freezing in the dark. The shift to intensive oil use enabled an enormous increase in human standards of living. If anything we should have accelerated it. The externalities have been minimal in comparison.

[bix6]

Killing the earth is minimal? I said slow not prevent. Tech accelerationists think tech fixes everything when it really just lets them abuse everyone for decades before regulations catch up, if they ever do.

[nradov]

Calm down, no one is killing the Earth. Slowing the adoption of oil would have condemned millions of people to misery and poverty. Speed it up.