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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?