Hacker News Reader

Comment by apparent | Hacker News Reader

> Guns don’t have numerous other positive use cases, so AI is simply not a fair comparison.

They may not have numerous positive use cases, but the one where they save your life is a pretty good one. People who live where police are nearby don't appreciate how different things are out in the country.

View on HN

Digression, but gun laws (or lack thereof) apply equally to cities where most people live and where guns wreck most of their havoc and cities are banned from passing any laws to help fix. Different issue entirely.

In fact this kind of case-by-case handling is exactly what I’m asking for in AI as opposed to blanket laws.

I appreciate that they can save lives in cities/suburbs as well. I was just pointing out that an item does not need to have "numerous" positive use cases to counterbalance downsides. It is sufficient to have one sizable positive use case, which firearms do have. People who live in proximity to police may not feel this way, but people who live out in the country tend to have a different take (popular saying: when seconds count, the sheriff is minutes away).

No case-by-case handling can negate the energy costs and other side effects of datacenters, for instance. Your arguments are sophistry.

Energy costs are a function of energy supply. We have infinite energy being beamed down to us everyday. Using energy as a cudgel to suppress demand and deflate economic growth is the real sophistry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com