Aside from the fact that you cannot copy/paste a nuclear bomb because it isn’t a piece of information, I would return with a different question:
I assume you divert to this as a claim that nuclear weapons should be controlled by nature and honest people only. Do you consider our government to be a group of mature, honest, competent individuals who show restraint and humility?
I don't think there's a clean yes or no answer to your question. But I'm not an anarchist, and I'm generally okay with the state prohibiting to the personal ownership of weapons of mass destruction, and I would greatly prefer that states not possess them, either.
Then you are asking for something to be un-invented. Which is great, I also think we should all get unicorns to fly around on. (No disrespect just like unicorn jokes whenever I find a use case 🤣)
I think the more local the restrictions or guidance, the better. No, I don’t think the Federal govt should be able to control whether anyone else is “allowed” to have nukes, because it always means they are the only ones with nukes.
I can’t imagine a singular group of people I trust *less* than the corrupt, steaming pile of utter shit that is Washington DC. They are literally destroying this country as we speak and bringing us to the edge of nuclear war at this very moment with their stupidity and narcissism. So right now they are my greatest fear when it comes to a risk of nuclear annihilation.
I don't think any individual is inherently trustworthy. I reject the populist impulse that average human is good and moral on their own, and the "elites" however they're defined, are uniquely corrupt and uniquely the source of evil in the world. I think this is deeply confused.
I believe complex collective action problems can only be addressed through unifying political institutions. I believe, although flawed, liberal democracy is our best bet right now at addressing the different equities, that balance the protection of personal freedom and self-actualization with the existence of collection action problems.
I think libertarians and anarchists who reject the existence of collective action problems and negative externalities, are simply engaging in motivated reasoning.
It’s a interesting discussion, yet it might be interesting to question one’s own premise. I have tried this: searched the AppStore for keywords like AI chatbot etc . I found endless AI apps here, all of them have enormous dumbing down potential. Unpopular opinion: this all goes a bit in the direction of the Emperor's New Clothes :“the fairy tale shows why groups often make bad decisions, to what extent individuals can be influenced and why people often stand by during bad events without acting."
It’s not about where we are. It’s about where we are headed. I don’t think ChatGPT is the specific threat right now. The threat is the technology beginning to advance beyond our capacity to understand it, and therefore know how to control it, and align it with human values.
Research & Development
Institute & University
💌
I am aware of that. Since some perceive more others less threatening , I think it is important to examine the discussion about something that is now finding concrete applications at this very point. Of course, it's fundamentally about technology and how absurd : Musk seems to be the modern Victor Lustig who can monetize anything and somehow too many people think it's cool too ... it's a phenomenon. Lustig actually sold the Eiffel Tower in 1925. Well, what the future brings, of course, we determine. For me, it's not a question of whether regulation makes sense. It's more about-as you wrote-who executes it and in what context, if I get you right. I'm with you there, I can't think of anything better than your suggestions. Except , we start with the simple questions: what can I do with this now ? And that leads to elicit some future scenarios. It bothers me a little ..the coquetry with AI in general. It's all so immensely
big ..let's make it a little smaller ?
It's not that politicians are uniquely corrupt, it's that a system pf political power uniquely corrupts the people who are in it.
I would argue that to suggest otherwise is to suggest that incentives don't affect how people behave, their ethics, or what they believe. Which I would certainly disagree with.
I agree with you on the earlier point, that no individual is inherently trustworthy, which is why I'm far, far more skeptical of hierarchies of unaccountable, bureaucratic political power in a general sense. I think they reinforce exactly the sorts of corruption and malicious intent that you are claiming we need to better protect ourselves from. On which I agree, but seem to disagree on what means we have to prevent them, and what systems help or hurt that cause.
