> But either way, if you believe this is going to be something
powerful, then you would want to be able to possess it, control it
and learn all about it.
This reveals interesting assumptions.
There are some powerful things where you simply want to put as much
distance between you and it as possible. We have forgotten that, in
our hubris.
There are many nasty, predatory things in nature that work by enticing
its victim into wanting to possess and control it. That is the essence
of the con (confidence trick) that underlies a big portion of social
engineering.
When "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" it's compulsion, not
reason. "Technological determinism" is a failure of will, common I
think, amongst those who actually lack vision and need a "Utopian
narrative" to fill in the emptiness.
It's not that "the will" is wrong, it's just missing. We are doing
21st century science bit still with an 18th century science and
technology attitude, stumbling along from one surprise to the next,
mouths agog in technical awe and giddy excitement.
As a kid in the 20th century I'd always imagined that 21st century
science would be purposeful, and rooted in some coherent social telos.
After all, the problems of the world are quite evident.
To "posses and control" one has to see the thing as a weapon, and
that is the unsaid thing in all these discussions.
The "AI debate" is all about blind hope. Hope that a largely
incomprehensible technology will serve my interests better than
yours - and that I can weaponise them before others do, and that I'm
prepared to risk everybody's welfare to take a shot at it.