Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source bioagent research, open source nuclear warheads, open source human cloning protocols
Those are also all dual-use technologies that are objectively morally neutral
They have to be about both because outcomes aren’t predictable, and whether something is an intermediate or ultimate outcome isn’t always clear. We have a law requiring indicator use on lane change, not just hitting someone while lane changing, for example.
The equivalent would be if the law simply said, "don't change lanes unsafely" but didn't define it much beyond that, and left it to law enforcement and judges to decide, so anytime someone changed lanes "unsafely" there's now extremely unknown legal risk.
This is directly analogous to requiring disclosures and certifications be filed with the state. Those are actions as much as hitting an indicator.
I haven’t read the proposed bill closely. But it seems to be a standard rulemaking bill.
Circumvention also absent the DMCA isn't illegal.
Some outcomes are pretty terrible, I think there are valid instances where we might also want to prevent precursor technology from being widely disseminated to prevent them.
No, actually you don’t.
This is just a slippery slope that suggests that any of these examples are even remotely comparable to AI. There is room for nuance and it’s easy to spot the outlier among bioagent research, nuclear warheads, human cloning, and generative artificial intelligence.
I hope I'm wrong
Maybe wait until you're sure before holding guns to peoples' heads.
(admittedly, I'm getting a bit motte-bailey here, but still)
It’s unhelpful to the argument when you do this, and it makes our side look like a bunch of smug self entitled assholes.
The reality is that AI is disruptive but we don’t know how disruptive.
The parent post is clearly hyperbole; but let’s push back on what is clearly nonsense (ie. AI being more dangerous than nuclear weapons) in a logical manner hm?
Understanding AI is not the issue here; the issue so that no one knows how disruptive it will eventually be; not me, not you, not them.
People are playing the risk mitigation game; but the point is that if you play it too hard you end up as a ludite in a cave with no lights because something might be dangerous about “electricity”.
nuclear warheads?