Hacker News Reader

Comment by can16358p | Hacker News Reader

Using the same logic lets ban the sale of kitchen knifes, they can be used for stabbing people.

The UK prohibits the sale of knives to under-16s in the same way as it does cigarettes and alcohol.

We've not even begun to ask the question of whether there are ethical problems of exposing children to unregulated AI and vice versa.

I didn't say it's a good reason to not release the models, it's just why I think they aren't being released.

You should strive to respond to the strongest interpretation of what you read and not the weakest one.

You’re being overly dramatic. People are responding to your argument which was “these things are capable of harm which is why they’re not being released and congress is gonna freak because ethics”. People are highlighting why this is a BS argument, whether you fully espouse it is not really relevant. You presented it so thats what’s being rebutted.

I genuinely suggest you take the time to re-read their comment. Their argument was not that "these things are capable of harm"!

All of us can be tempted into overly quick responses without truly reading what we're responding to.

Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion from their comment, but the entire comment is structured under a presumption that AI generated CP is harmful, otherwise why would they have included the whole social political section? If that’s not what was meant then my bad. My point still stands and I don’t think I gave the commenter any grief. I just called an argument that they potentially didn't make BS.

It is structured under the presumption that some people think that AI generated CP is harmful, and AI researcher think that some people think that AI generated CP is harmful, and are afraid of the potential backlash.

The commenter did not necessarily adopt any of these positions themselves.

I agree that you were civil about it and no harm was done other than a bumpier than necessary comment thread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com