[xethos]

My larger point is that nobody - nobody - defaults to telling us the coffee mug is unregulated, as AI allegedly ought to be. They always compare it to something much more commonly used as a weapon; something that, when asked to name a household object likely to be used as a weapon, the average person would guess.

[dullcrisp]

Your point is that people make a stronger argument even when a weaker one would be sufficient?

[xethos]

Instead of comparing AI to any other tool, especially one closer to "useful with a computer", the common comparison is always a weapon of some kind.

If the design of tools are neutral, one tool should do as well as another in this common comparison. But the useful application of tools is inherent in their design.

If tools were neutral, as so many on this site claim, why is AI only ever compared to knives and hammers?

Parent has lots of links to other common objects causing harm, why are they never used as the example when tools are allegedly neutral? That would be a stronger argument opposing AI regulation - ethernet has less regulations that knives, but can still be used as a murder weapon

[Ukv]

Hammers are kind of just the prototypical tool, but I've definitely also seen comparisons to keyboards, paintbrushes, and traditional digital tools.

> why are they never used as the example when tools are allegedly neutral? That would be a stronger argument opposing AI regulation

The argument is strongest if pointing to tools that have larger potential impact yet are still widely considered neutral and not/loosely regulated.

"We should consider AI a neutral tool and not heavily regulate it because we do the same for drink coasters" is not convincing, because there's not all that much you can do with a coaster.

[IIsi50MHz]

Although…my gran's coasters were made of Waterford crystal, and could definitey do some damage. (-: