There are many examples of this.
- Non-proliferation folks who think they can actually rid the world of nukes. Will not happen.
- Does anyone seriously think they can stop human cloning, once it's technically feasible, from happening somewhere on the planet sooner or later? By fiat, by legislation, by moral appeals, etc? Will not happen. If clones can be made, clones will be made. Descriptive, not normative claim.
- AI-generated content has reached a certain point where we have to worry about a whole host of issues, most obvious being more sophisticated fakes. "Please think of potential consequences", ad-hoc restrictions, self-imposed or otherwise, are moot in the long run. It's part of our world now.
It looks to me that you're shifting the goalposts here: nonproliferation has effectively reduced the number of countries with access to nukes. Or is worrying about the number of direct military conflicts between nuclear-armed powers an example of what you call 'missing the point'?
Larger point being: with some disruptive technology, like nuclear weapons, if it can be done, it will be done.
I disagree with the idea that putting restrictions in place shouldn't be done because 'the problem exists'. The problem exists but that doesn't mean measures can't be taken to keep it manageable. I don't think the majority of people are in your intended demographic of wanting to stop the problem. Most just want to prevent exacerbating the problem.
Specifically when it comes to the problem of AI fakes, I'd rather invest effort in harm reduction - train better fake recognition systems - than attempting to stop people from abusing this technological advance by crafting moral appeals and attempting to legislate it all away. Or something as silly as hiding the code. I think mine is a more robust measure.
AI image generation is not a build-your-own-weaponized-virus kit.
It’s a useful tool that can be used to produce creative expression. What people produce is up to them, and the fact that they might misuse their capacity for free speech isn’t an argument for curtailing it.
This is doubly true with regard to technologies that seem not only powerful, not only adaptable to new domains, but also rapidly improving on both of those dimensions. I don’t know what is the right level or type of limitation, but there is nothing confusing or weird at all about wanting to be careful with such a technology.
If technology keeps advancing (it will), new developments will approach “looks kind of alarming” status faster and faster. This is because they will also approach “could destroy everything we know and love” status faster and faster.
Lets take a current potential problem. That is a low powered application capable of facial recognition. You can now strap that on to any number of dumb weapons and you've created a smart weapon.
In itself it's not a problem, until it starts happening a lot. If you think like a house cat, you tend to think that society owes you its existence and you're the king of the hill. But say weapons proliferation occurs all those ideas of "I have rights" go right out the window, and this loss of rights will be supported by the masses that don't want to get droned in the head out on a date. The tyranny you want to avoid will be caused by the pursuit of absolute freedom.
As technology becomes more complex the line will blur even further. AI as a build your own 'terrible thing' will happen. Physics demands it, everything is just information at the end of the day.
Now it's up to you to avoid the worst possible outcomes between now and then.
Even actors like the Unibomber had a huge impact on things like bomb detection in mail and airplanes. Now imagine the modern Unibomber, instead of attacking randoms went after senators. The moment the class protected by wealth and power comes under attack from AI technologies expect a raft of laws limiting and restricting them to be enacted.
That's exactly why your rental histories at places like Blockbuster are, by law, confidential; A politician had their rental history leaked. Once a deepfake of a politician gets enough movement, said politician is going to begin rallying support against AI.
Crispr has changed a lot of things and make possible for an outsider, with 10.000$ and a little dedication, to alter genome of every living form.
https://www.ft.com/content/9ac7f1c0-1468-4dc7-88dd-1370ead42...
Now we have the additional risk of man made biological risk amplified by cheaper and cheaper genetic engineering as well as natural biological risk amplified by a nonstop global travel network. Neither of these risk vectors existed til recently either.
IMO the only analogous risks pre-cold war were what, asteroid strike or volcanic event? Those are rare and, more importantly, not modulated upwards by any human action or human system. Nuclear and bio risk probably only climb with more people and more technological advancement.
Not very good but:
a) the people who currently have this tech are not what I'd call trustworthy so why should I leave dangerous tech only in the hands of dangerous people?
b) it would probably kickstart a "build your own vaccine kit" industry
Do you know what they found?
Were you aware of the low level of biosecurity protocols on the site?
Things like that ;-)
You can find plenty of people who would answer all "no"-s and would be far more destructive if they had access.
Would you also claim that no one who worked at Cernobyl was trustworthy? This is just guilt by association.
Let's see.
“Did you fund gain of research function at the labs in Wuhan?”
This speaks to trustworthiness and responsibility/recklessness.
“Do you know what they found?”
This speaks to, again, trustworthiness and transparency.
“Were you aware of the low level of biosecurity protocols on the site?”
This speaks to, again, trustworthiness and responsibility/recklessness.
> You can find plenty of people who would answer all "no"-s and would be far more destructive if they had access.
It shows that those with the technology now are not trustworthy, going forward I might have different questions but we should start where we are, not by providing an apologetic and condoning poor behaviour.
> Would you also claim that no one who worked at Cernobyl was trustworthy?
Did they fuck up? Were they part of an organisation that fucked up? What did they do to stop the incredible fuck up from happening?
> This is just guilt by association.
Of whom to what?
With regards to Cernobyl, other than Anatoly Dyatlov (who can directly be ascribed blame and served prison time), it is really hard to blame any of the people involved. Yet there were all kinds of known and unknown stresses and defects in the system that resulted in a tragedy. Does that mean we should ban nuclear energy?
I'm so glad you were able to read my mind, perhaps you could open source your mind reading device, or would that be too dangerous to share to the public?
What I have decided is that there is evidence of lies by people involved in the funding and the implementation of the research at Wuhan, there really is no need for your clumsy straw men, especially when you can read my mind.
> Does that mean we should ban nuclear energy?
I'm the one arguing for the further distribution of technology, are you arguing with yourself now or did your mind reading device go on the blink?
As for building your own vaccine. Even large nations were not able to develop effective ones. It’s easier to put a bullet in someone than it is to take it out.
In this talk[1] at DEF CON, John Sotos pleads with hackers to put their time into learning how to combat biological weapons. He points out that the tech will move forward to being able to target more and more specific populations. Like any other weapon, knowing that your enemy has it too and can hurt you or those you care about with it is a highly effective deterrent.
> As for building your own vaccine. Even large nations were not able to develop effective ones. It’s easier to put a bullet in someone than it is to take it out.
Two things here. Firstly, trauma surgery and techniques from the military and places where bullet wounds are common have benefited the rest of us for when we get into scrapes of even a non-violent kind.
Secondly, defence does not always lag behind attack, you assume that the future would look like now but that is to ignore the history of any tech of such nature.
I think this is just fear of the unknown at work. Biomedical knowledge is complicated and requires effort to learn therefore most consider it a known unknown therefore something to be feared. Some people do have such knowledge therefore they are to be feared because who knows what nefarious intentions they have and what conspiracies they are part of. Therefore they are dangerous people using dangerous tech.
Were the physicists who discovered how to split the atom also dangerous people?
In the ordinary meaning of the word? Yes. That's why they were sworn to secrecy.
Not the same as saying they were immoral or wrong to have worked on the Bomb, that's a different debate, but in terms of sheer effectiveness they were incredibly dangerous.
An army is dangerous. That's how it works.
Danger is part of the domain of threat modelling. And when doing threat modelling, the morality of the opponent is a distraction.
However in the domain of propaganda, threats, immorality and assigning the latter to the former go hand in hand.
I would argue not, given the evidence[1].
[1] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-fu...
What kind of trust did you place in them that was now broken?
I at the very least believe they would not desire to expose themselves and their loved ones to pathogens.
If the origin was a leak, then, sure, we should see if any biosecurity protocol was broken and why, and design better protocols. But posturing that the researchers were not "trustworthy" is not helpful.
You call them untrustworthy and dangerous people and by that you are implying malice. Why? And what makes you believe outside of that small circle there aren't people far more malicious?
If creating diseases becomes so easy anyone can do it, we will see the age of biological ransomware. I am certain there are people far more malicious and far more immoral than any of the researchers who worked on this.
Come on, I'm not a student debating in the common room, this is just silly.
Since you decline, I believe it is useless to continue the discussion.
because handing it to everyone doesn't make things better? I don't like that Putin has nukes, but it's much better than Putin and every offshoot of Al-Qaeda having nukes.
Civilization ending tech in the hands of powerful actors is usually subject to some form of rational calculus. Having it in the hands of everyone means basically it's game over. For a lot of dangeorus technologies there is no 'vaccine' (in time).
It might mean it's time to face up to more important questions, like why every offshoot of Al-Qaeda wants to use nukes and then countering that.
Nukes Are very very effective at creating terror. Terror is somewhat effective at almost any action that requires the participation of others. Ergo, nukes are effective at threatening other to do what you want.
Want to counter that, fine. Genetically engineer every person to be invulnerable to radiation and explosions and the desire to use nukes diminishes because they are no longer as effective.
Sayonara.
This isn't Twitter, please keep this juvenile nonsense for there.
As to your "answer":
> Genetically engineer every person to be invulnerable to radiation and explosions and the desire to use nukes diminishes because they are no longer as effective.
aside from it approaching word salad, I was referring to the deeper causes of violence. I would trust (there's that word again, I hope you can cope this time) the Dalai Lama with any weapon known to man and any only dreamt of, because, as he says[1]:
> “Real gun control must come from here,” the Dalai Lama said, pointing at his heart.
How you failed to deduce that with your enhanced powers of insight into me, I cannot fathom.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Dalai-Lama-says-real...
Limits to speech were sill upheld if that speech could reasonably incite “imminent lawless action”.
> Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined the clear and present danger test in 1919 in Schenck v. United States, offering more latitude to Congress for restricting speech in times of war, saying that when words are "of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent....no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
That was ostensibly for sending literature to recently conscripted soldiers suggesting that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude that violated the Thirteenth Amendment.
Whereas, clear and present danger is defined as:
> Advocacy could be punished only "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
That test is basically redrawing the law so it fits, once again, with that of common assault and breach of the peace. Still, I'm not sure what relevance all of this has to the subject at hand, unless we're going to end up at whether something is legal or not or even more absurdly, whether there's a war or not. Those are not very interest nor compelling arguments, especially as there are no such kits yet and no such law regarding the kits (unless we concede that it may well be covered under the 2nd amendment, as it states arms not guns).
[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-i...
[2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-o...
[3] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-unite...
[4] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-prese...
>Still, I'm not sure what relevance all of this has to the subject at hand
The point is rights exist. An to put a limit on a right, you must show a clear and imminent risk. I think you got a little wrapped around the axle on the 2A piece and missed the connection to the article at hand.
When you equivocate code to free speech, there will be people who say certain code is dangerous enough to be limited in that regard. Meaning, a discussion about regulating code is apropos, even though many people will disagree about the threshold of what constitutes a credible risk.
If you're going to correct others for misstating the facts and reasoning of US Supreme Court judgements then I think it only fair that others may do the same to you.
"Fire!" (falsely) in crowded theatre: Specific. Beneficial outcome unlikely and difficult to even imagine. Harmful outcomes nearly certain.
Powerful AI codebase or service: Generic. Endless beneficial and harmful outcomes easily imagined.
Nuclear material can be used to treat cancer. But it can also be used to make weapons. We regulate both.
Generic means it can do a nearly unlimited list of things good and bad right?
Just like a human can do a list of nearly unlimited things?
Humans, because they can do both good and bad have laws they must follow if they do bad, right?
Then what are you suggesting for AI?
This is a scenario for a dystopian science fiction novel, as opposed to a a rational plan for our children's future.
And if you do think they are comparable, note that the equivalent of a "build-your-own vaccine kit" in your scenario has not materially improved the situation (right now, "Google Has Most of My Email Because It Has All of Yours" is at position 8 on the HN front page.)
> “What we have developed over decades for cancer vaccine development has been the tailwind for developing the COVID-19 vaccine, and now the Covid-19 vaccine and our experience in developing it gives back to our cancer work,” Tureci said.
[1] https://nypost.com/2022/10/19/covid-vax-makers-say-cancer-va...
Do you think the advances in medical techniques for treating gun wounds was the intent of gangbangers when they shoot each other?
Do A in order to promote B requires intention. It doesn't matter that no one is doing that because it's a straw man, as I'm not arguing it either. What I am saying is:
If A then B will occur (probably and with increasing likelihood).
Quite different.
My heart is full of bad intentions, that must be it, it can't be that I simply found your logic to be wanting.
I would like you to tell me how I can quote you out of context when your replies are just above, that would be interesting. This thread is the context, I doubt you even need to scroll from my quote to see yours in full.
And what you did is, indeed, quoting out of context. The whole issue with quoting out of context is that, when you look at where the quote was taken from, you can see that it does not actually support the claim that it allegedly justifies. When the original is right there for anyone to check, it merely raises the tangential question of why the quoter thought the argument would succeed in the first place.