Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgellow | Hacker News Reader

Have we considered NOT taking that risk? Given it is extremely unlikely that we will do the necessary preparation and take precautions. It’s fine to identify issues and benefits, but then you have to ask yourself why accept that gamble in behalf of the whole world

View on HN

How would that work? Make a law that it is illegal to own more than X GFLOPS of computing per person? With another limit on corporations? Maybe a Computing Enforcement Agency to investigate potential violations? On a slightly different topic, why have I never heard about taxes for AI/robots? Is there a reason why people should be the only taxpayers?

We live in a big modern world there some options that are not really available. As if we are stuck in a really wide raging river. We are not going to be going upstream regardless our desires. Saying stop I want out is not really an option.

Of course it is. We do that for lots of technologies that are considered too risky, including weapons, cryptographic algorithms, substances, and way more

I don’t really understand this. Sometimes I see even stronger versions of this sentiment, that amount to saying, hey, it’s inevitable, so you might as well be e/acc. But you can just not do things. Societies can just not do things. They used to know this. We don’t have to admit the neoliberal Nuremberg defense of “I was just following incentives.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

Reply on news.ycombinator.com