Therefore, we need to be proactive about policies that would protect against unfettered influence by those controlling the technology.
You've said the equivalent of "guns don't kill people. People kill people".
Therefore, we need to be proactive about policies that would protect against unfettered influence by those controlling the technology.
You've said the equivalent of "guns don't kill people. People kill people".
I don't disagree about the need for policies; I just think those policies need to be directed toward humans as the weak link in the chain, not machines. This is not like gun control where a single person with a weapon can do a lot of unchecked damage, and thus access to guns needs to be controlled. Very few have access/can do damage with an algorithm.
This is definitely the point to make a "did you read the full article" check.
My reading of it was that people were clearly seriously concerned about the current state of the art. The article also considered Future possibilities.