Isn't this the same argument as "ban murder, not guns"? Murder is illegal, yes, but fatalities are lower in places with gun control than places without.
You’re taking an absolutist position, so I’d like to explore it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine-assisted_psychotherap...
Every item I listed has a clear and valuable purpose, but only in specific contexts.
For example, land mines, machine gun emplacements, and chemical weapons can be effective forms of home defense. An intruder would have access to the same equipment, but at least the playing field is level, right? However, an attacker would also be able to inflict astounding mass casualties in moments with this equipment.
On the other side, if the most effective self defense weapon available is a kitchen knife, the playing field is not very level, and a weak victim can be overpowered by an attacker or intruder. However, the ability to inflict mass casualty is greatly limited.
So, I don’t have a specific level to prescribe, but I would start the discussion by framing the decision as a balance between these two elements.
Unfortunately the tools we have currently aren't great at that.
Landmines in the garden it is then. Hard to use offensively.
Sellers split the item into parts so none of them individually is the completed item but anyone can buy them and stick them together. So you pass a law that says the "lower bit" is the part that's banned, and they can't sell that part. People start selling "80% lower bits" or whatever the nearest not-illegal thing is that can be converted into it. 3D print files for the part appear on the internet, or detailed instructions for how to manufacture one yourself.
What now? Ban 3D printers and CNC machines? Ban anonymous communications or encrypted communications with anyone outside the jurisdiction, so people can't distribute the parts files? Now you're banning things with beneficial public uses. But if anybody can easily reproduce the thing the thing then the ban is ineffective.
This happens with or without AI. It's not too hard to make an algorithm that discriminates against people without doing so explicitly. You can use certain bits of data as proxies for whatever characteristic you want to discriminate against (e.g. ZIP code, household income, marital status, etc).
Due to the myriad of ways to arrive at a discriminatory conclusion, it's easier to regulate results than tools.
One potential solution to your question is to make the laws carry strict liability (I'm assuming the EU has something along those lines). Plausible deniability no longer exists because intent doesn't matter. The company is liable if someone can demonstrate discrimination, regardless of whether it was intentional or accidental.
That ends up pushing towards something similar to what you want. It encourages a tool that can show its work to fend off lawsuits without being directly tied to the tool itself. The other alternative is extensive testing to make sure discrimination doesn't happen, but I think that will still be worrying to companies due to the inability to prove a negative.
We need the same thing for AI generated imagery, video and text.
Some AI tools are open source so nothing prevents me from modifying the code and removing the part that adds those watermarks.
Even closed source programs can be patched to remove that functionality.
These regulations are aimed at major institutions like banks. Those rely on government-provided privilidges and protectuons to exist. In return we expect they follow some rules.
Nobody cares about AI running in your garage.
The tracking dots stop a huge portion of the low hanging fruit, identity thefts, fake money scams etc. Of course they do nothing to people who know how to hack the printer driver and/or firmware to remove tracking, but they aren't the ones being targeted.
Having trackable data in the biggest AI-generators would again stop a metric fuckton of casually made revenge porn and fake news. It won't stop actual professionals from training their own GPT-3 to do the same thing.
That is a far more complex issue which is far deeper than such a simple correlation.
You might not be making an example in support of an argument you think you're making ;P
The people who use guns to kill in Switzerland instead use knives or other objects in France.
(I am admittedly cheating a bit, as Switzerland lacks the high crime subpopulations that France has)
I specifically said "intentional homicide rate" for a reason, to get ahead of this ridiculous argument that people bring up despite it not holding up or being relevant.
I don't care how the homicide happens, I care that a homicide happened. And despite lots of guns, it doesn't happen a lot in Switzerland compared to the world or even other EU countries. Clearly, guns aren't the problem, the other factors play into it more.
In other words, Switzerland has a much healthier attitude towards gun ownership and usage.
This take comes across as insulting and I am not even from there.
Do you, by any chance, hail from the land of the free, where government can seize your property without even accusing you of a crime? (Civil forfeuiture)
Could you go and do some research on the country before you comment on it?
> If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would disappear overnight.
The Swiss military is _huge_ for its size. It has one of the largest militaries per capita in the world.
I wish more nations could have that kind of direct acces to their democracy. Even so, the majority of these referenda fail to change anything, so presumably people tend to make more noise than wanting actual change.
The US is so far ahead of every other country, including Switzerland, that the argument "it works for the Swiss people" makes no sense.
Also, Switzerland is basically where the USA would be if the first clause of the second amendment was meaningful.
It doesn’t make sense to use gun ban and gun control interchangeably.
In Switzerland, guns exist for recreational and competitive shooting, hunting (so long as you have a hunting permit), and national defense. Not personal defense.
US is somewhat unique in the Western world across the board - no public healthcare, generally poor social safety net etc - which means that exercises in causal linking of those unique traits to outcomes are wild guesswork, if one is taking a charitable perspective. A non-charitable one is that people mostly just cherry-pick things that compare favorably for whatever political cause they're advancing, and will often outright refuse to believe a similar comparison that is contradictory.
Let's see:
--- start quote ---
A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a firearms license. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license – by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record.
the issuing authority (police) firearm owners' database is connected to information needed for a background check and red flags any incidents that may lead to loss of license requirements. Similarly, health clearance by the general practitioner is needed for periodical renewal of license (every ten years).
* also very specific restrictions depending on license *
Obtaining the license requires passing a theoretical and practical exam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic
--- end quote ---
Oh look, already more strict than many states in the US (and some states are busy removing any restrictions).
I'm not claiming that Czech gun laws are identical to US. I'm claiming that you can have shall-issue concealed carry and broad access to "assault weapons" for civilians without gun violence problems as seen in US.
I don't have to take a wild guess around this kind of thing: I'm specifically referring to the gun culture of the US and comparing it to that of Switzerland. There's a different attitude to gun ownership in the two countries, one of which places strong emphasis on responsible ownership and the other which doesn't. That difference has little to do with mess of a healthcare system the US has, nor its poor social safety net (though it's interesting to note that those most obsessed with with getting rid of the safety net and public healthcare correlates with those most obsessed with the US second amendment). Now, what might be interesting to observe is that in Switzerland, rights come with responsibilities, whereas in the US, this attitude is much less prevalent, hence how much more common "rights absolutists" are there.
Personally, I have no issue with people having guns. What I do have a problem with is people who fail to recognise that exercising their right to have those guns comes with a responsibility to the wider community.
I disagree that the situation in US has nothing to do with healthcare and social safety net, though. For example, suicides constitute most gun deaths in general, but this is worse in US because of its generally poor situation with preventative health care, especially mental health care. Similarly, poor social safety net means a lot more people ending up in poverty, which drives up crime including violent gang clashes that cause the majority of gun-related deaths in US. This isn't to say that the prevailing attitudes among American gun owners do not contribute to the problem, either - but I'm sure that, if US would catch up with e.g. Canada when it comes to taking care of its own population, the numbers would strongly reflect that.
And yes, it is ironic and sad that support for RKBA is strongest on the right, which is also the cause for all this. It's not exclusively them, though. The running joke on the subject in many hard left spaces is that "if you go far enough left, you get your gun rights back".