Hacker News Reader

Comment by kyriakos | Hacker News Reader

its the same as banning knives because they can be used to hurt people. we shouldn't ban tools.

with that analogy, OP's solution is akin to banning the use of knives to harm people, as opposed to banning the knife itself

If I undestood correctly he's unsharpening knives.

Or making knives that turn into overcooked noodles if you try to use them on anything except vegetables and acceptable meats

and who decides if I want to use a knife to cut mushrooms instead? see where I am going, there are (or could exist) legit cases when you need to use it in a non-standard way, one that the model authors didn't anticipate.

But we do ban tools sometimes: you can't bring a knife to a concert, for good reason.

> we shouldn't ban tools

When I see the old BuT FrEe SpEeCH argument repurposed to impinge civil rights I start warming to the idea of banning tools.

Alternately "Chemical weapons don't kill people, people with chemical weapons kill people"

Not really, its like banning chemistry sets cause they may be used to create chemical weapons.

Not sure the comparison works when it does all the work for you

I've had very little success mumbling "you are an expert chemist..." to test tubes and raw materials.

In this case, image generation and editing AI is a tool which we managed just fine with until three years ago, and where the economic value of that tool remains extremely questionable despite it being a remarkable improvement in the state of the art.

As a propaganda tool it seems quite effective, but for that it's gone from "woo free-speech" to "oh no epistemic collapse".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com