Hacker News Reader

Comment by espeed | Hacker News Reader

No. Med tech should be as abundant as can be. But with AI there too many unknowns we're still figuring out. How to defend networks against AI attacks, hardening in general, how to handle the containment problem, the proliferation of deep fakes, deep truth and decerning between the two. And what that means at different levels. What are the critical points? What's the optimal path?

View on HN

Dropping the hyperbole for a second.

Is there a line for ML (what we're erroneously calling AI here) where you think sharing it is appropriate? Self driving car tech could certainly save a great many lives; is it more reasonable to share the next Viagra than to save those people?

Selling them cars and chips is fine, to a degree. That's different than transferring IP and giving them independent capability because you can stop selling to them if need be.

Not sure if you've ever been to China, but suffice to say that IP law is really not a major issue there. Reverse engineering ICs is very common, and basically the only thing really stopping that from happening for top end ICs is that RE time eats into profits.

Yes, fake chips have been a problem too, polluting the supply space. All the more reason to protect and verify IP. There's new tech for that. Maybe the next big thing. Hardware verified. Authenticity.

The problem for your argument isn't the parts that don't work, it's the ones that do-- and there are plenty of them.

You keep seeing the part while missing the whole. Kick your perspective up a level, and maybe you'll put it together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com