[groundzeros2015]

> The issue is not so much what they do or that they exist, but how they are utilized

This is exactly how we got here though. Technology is not passive. It changes incentives, procedures, ideas and shapes the world. If we don't structurally limit what and how it's used, then we are not in control, no matter what are choices personally are.

[api]

A major problem is that if we structurally limit what technologies do, we are still not in control. Now whoever we empowered to control and limit the technology is in control. Who keeps them accountable?

You’ll probably get one of three outcomes: regulatory capture by monopolies, self dealing by bureaucrats to enrich themselves or gain power, or regulatory capture by self absorbed ideologues who halt all progress or force it down some ideologically approved path.

In none of those scenarios is anything aligned with the best interest of the people.

[groundzeros2015]

I don’t disagree. A consumer oriented democracy is not well equipped for the challenge.

[bigfudge]

That’s what you will get in the US. It’s not clear a functioning democracy would produce the same outcome.

[groundzeros2015]

I think it’s pretty for hard for democracies not to cater to the most base desires.

[api]

As opposed to? What makes the ego and base desires of an aristocracy superior?

It’s hard for humans not to get bogged down in base desires, period, because of the dopamine system.

[groundzeros2015]

> As opposed to?

A government which can choose to protect values which are unpopular in the short term.

> What makes the ego and base desires of an aristocracy superior?

Their awareness of higher values and goals. For example how technology might impact the population.

I would recommend Aristotle’s politics for an overview of the strengths and weakness of various government types.

[Nasrudith]

I hate to tell you this but nobody has ever been in control. To think you can is to think you can unring a bell.

[pixl97]

Right, and that's why we all died in a nuclear war.....

[ElectronCharge]

The disincentives to nuclear war are glaringly obvious enough that even politicians (and their masters) get it.

AI isn't like that. One problem is that it's rather generally misunderstood at this point. "AI" is not "intelligence". It's intelligence-adjacent, and something like LLMs is part of our psyche...the subconscious facility that allows us to form sentences without really thinking about it.

At any rate, I have to agree with most of the points the blog author brings up.

[pixl97]

I mean, not really. The only reason we've not died in a nuclear war is building nuclear bombs is very very difficult and expensive. If suddenly it became quick and easy to get nukes, we'd flash fry pretty quick when any and every suicidal nut with convictions got their hands on one.