Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

I understand why they want to—even to the point of thinking it would be the right move if only it would actually work—but it won't work.

True, software is dual use[0] but it's too slippery. Even things like nuclear weapons designs[1] are getting pretty easy for people to get their hands on. This stuff is just text! How are you going to stop this from spreading? It won't work.

Besides, top-shelf AI tech isn't much better than mid-shelf stuff. For example, self-driving car technology. We're talking about the difference of 1000kms with no intervention by a human driver vs 5000kms. A terrorist weaponizing self-driving tech for, say, a mobile weapons platform (AKs connected to remote triggers, say) doesn't need the top shelf stuff. They need an auto that can go maybe 10kms.

Thing is, unlike most people I talk to in tech, I actually support the majority of the objectives intelligence agencies in the west have. I just don't know how you solve this one. We need free speech to be a liberal democracy but information itself is becoming dangerous. How do you square that?

Further, if the power of individuals keeps going up due to technological advancement how do you maintain security and freedom at the same time? The only way I can see it working is for individuals to continue to get more peaceful.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology

[1] Thank goodness weapons grade fissile material is hard to make.

> We need free speech to be a liberal democracy but information itself is becoming dangerous. How do you square that?

You can't. Either speech is free or it's not. There are reasonable restrictions - literally inciting violence or things done to intentionally cause harm ("Fire!" in a theater, etc).

For information, the only thing you can do is make it classified, which is hard to do when it's a private company doing the innovating.

There is precedence for using restrictions on freedoms to preserve those freedoms, a good example is Germany which very highly values freedom of expression - but has strong laws to defend those freedoms against anti-democratic forces - often referred to as “militant democracy”: it’s a system that’s not paradoxically intolerant of intolerance and so far seems to work well - and it shows that it is possible to draw a line somewhere in the law without needing to resign oneself to having to tolerate virulent evil in the name of freedom of speech.

>> a good example is Germany which very highly values freedom of expression

Can you give references?

In my experience of living in Germany, freedom of expression is welcomed as long as it's the right kind of expression.

Freedom of expression never means that other are not free to voice their dislike of certain opinions. And while some expression is frowned upon other members of the public you are still within your legal rights to express them. The line you can not cross is incitement of violence, denial of the holocaust, breaking NDAs and so on. Contrary to what many Americans think, Germany is not a oppressive country that censors you left and right, but actually has relatively similar free speach rights to the US or other western countries.

>> Germany [..] has relatively similar free speech rights to the US or other western countries.

At least since NetzDG was passed I'm not sure it's quite that simple.

Google[0] says this about the NetzDG:

"The Network Enforcement Law (NetzDG) requires social networks with more than 2 million registered users in Germany to exercise a local take down of “obviously illegal” content [..] To qualify for a removal under NetzDG, content needs to fall under one of the 22 criminal statutes in the German criminal code to which NetzDG refers."

Politico[1] said this "Titanic, a German satirical magazine, was similarly barred after parodying anti-Muslim comments on its own Twitter account"

[0] https://transparencyreport.google.com/netzdg/youtube [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-hate-speech-netzdg-f...

> denial of the holocaust

This is a good example of something that is, without a doubt, unconstitutional to ban in the US.

I have been growing to accept that almost any technology that is sufficiently powerful is dual-use.

The classic sci fi example is spaceships; a rocket travelling at .2c is a devastating weapon and amazing tool for transit.

But so is AI tech, drones, and other technologies. Crypto can stop hackers and the government. 3D printers can print pen guns as well as plastic tools.

i think all tech is under the wings of rule 34, it just takes a while for somones imagination to kick in.

> Thank goodness weapons grade fissile material is hard to make.

The material itself is easy to make. It's the delivery systems that are hard to engineer. Missile technology is literally rocket science.

a cessna with a sawed off howitzer barrel is easy to engineer, the big problem, really is moving fissile materials around while satellites are looking for it.

I agree that delivery systems are no piece of cake, but if I'm worried about nukes I'm more worried about terrorism than I am about nation states. From that lens, fissile material is indeed hard to make. The Iranians were pulling their hair out when seemingly fine centrifuges mistimed due to malware. If it were easy then they could have tried a different approach.

The answer is probably the same as for the internet - encourage development in the west, possibly with some DAPRA type subsidies to counter the Chinese subsidising their own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com