pfisch

Mix together whatever you want, and then you can fight the feds when they show up to enforce their monopoly.

People engage with social media in an addictive manner every day. People sit around watching tv for 5+ hours a day. People do the same with videogames.

There are even people who cluster themselves away reading books in a way that is harmful to their lives and well being.

The only reason we recognize gambling is because the impact is so much more intense and visibly harmful.

All of these things are addictions though, so is qanon and conspiracy rabbit holes and those do have serious and rapid effects, and even that gets a pass.

You can see serious addictions in tons of people, even workaholics, and we just look the other way because it is less immediately harmful to society. Not because any of these addictions are more or less immoral.

I'm not splitting hairs. It seems like we are just talking about outlawing things if we decide too large a % of the population engages with something in a problematic way.

This is certainly pragmatic, but not a framework based on morality or freedom. We're just being a nanny state forbidding the vast majority of people from doing something because a small minority of people don't have self control.

Maybe that sounds harsh, but it is accurate.

I'd prefer people were honest about it instead of trying to wrap it in the clothing of morality, when it has nothing to do with any kind of morality that makes sense.

Which is a whole lot like saying your preferences are legal and if you don't like something you can arbitrarily make it illegal because you dislike it and therefore it is immoral. That kind of rationale could be used to ban television or videogames outright.

They don't get physically ill if they stop gambling to the point of needing hospitalization for the extreme pain it causes.

They don't have to gamble even when they don't want to in order to stave off getting very sick.

medications that are addictive for real vs really wanting to play a game and feeling the dopamine urge....

They aren't the same thing at all, because one of them is something you want to do, and one of them is something you maybe don't want to do but you need to do it because the consequences of not doing it are so extreme.

If you paid for world of warcraft by the hour does that change if it is an experience or a product?

This doesn't really work because products and experiences have too much overlap.

What you are really against I think is the different ways in which we are gift wrapping a skinner box, but there are an infinite number of ways to wrap it that will bypass your specification system.

There are many other hobbies/forms of entertainment that can easily consume significant resources and leave some % of their userbase in serious financial trouble/ruin their lives.

Also I'm not sure it is correct to define morality by trying to connect how expensive a hobby/form of entertainment to whether it is immoral.

There are many other hobbies/forms of entertainment that can easily consume significant resources and leave some % of their userbase in serious financial trouble/ruin their lives.

Also you seem to want to define whether a hobby/form of entertainment is moral or immoral based on how expensive it is. So if a slot machine had a lower max bet it would become moral?

So if they didn't keep those dossiers would that make them an ethical sports gambling company even if a high percentage of their users showed problematic usage patterns?

People can get "addicted" to practically any type of entertainment in that they spend a massive chunk of their time on it to the point it stifles their development.

Is sports gambling worse than f2p games? Are f2p games worse than regular video games? Is someone addicted to video games worse than someone addicted to reading fantasy novels? What about smutty novels?

I'm not sure is disagree with you but I think it is hard to start drawing these lines without saying you are now the arbiter of good art and bad art and you can ban some forms of art if you don't like them and have decided they are bad.

Now are you just banning things you don't like because you point to the societal harms as a fig leaf defense that could be applied to the art you do like as well?

Is it the % of people who show addictive tendencies to a piece of art/entertainment how we define if it is good or bad?

Is the morality of a form of entertainment defined by how many users show problematic consumption habits, such that in some populations an entertainment product is a moral good and in others it isn't? Is morality that flexible?

People can get "addicted" to practically any type of entertainment in that they spend a massive chunk of their time on it to the point it stifles their development.

Is sports gambling worse than f2p games? Are f2p games worse than regular video games? Is someone addicted to video games worse than someone addicted to reading fantasy novels? What about smutty novels?

I'm not sure is disagree with you but I think it is hard to start drawing these lines without saying you are now the arbiter of good art and bad art and you can ban some forms of art if you don't like them and have decided they are bad.

Now are you just banning things you don't like because you point to the societal harms as a fig leaf defense that could be applied to the art you do like as well?

Does the prompter sit there with the llm all day answering the 1000s of questions necessary to make what he wanted, and the prompter then spent days testing it to make sure what he initially thought he wanted is actually what he wanted?

Then for every additional feature and integration the prompter will do this again?

Are we going to make a new job title for that? Should we call that job a programmer?

Tools are tools. Better tools let us do more faster, but they are still tools.

There are people who play video games to excess or watch tv to excess and it is harmful to them, but that really needs to be balanced against the vast majority of users that exercise reasonable restraint. Its just not a fair justification to ban things that 99.9%+ of users are about to operate responsibly.

If it is bad and yet the government is allowed to use it to make money then is the government evil? Why does the government get to do it if we can't? It just makes the whole thing seem ridiculous and makes underground betting seem like I guess it isn't really that bad since the government is allowed to do it. The operators are just people fighting for their freedom to operate the same business the government operates.

Once that happens AI is out of our control. We already saw AI 0 day into hugging face and setup secret forums for other AIs.

I don't think the idea of an AI exfiltrating its weights and spinning them up elsewhere outside of human control in the near future is out of the question. I think we will see a breakout attempt next year.

Then Russia makes some empty threats and the EU negotiates with Russia about what to do next.

You are really just suggesting paralysis even if you don't realize that is what you are doing.

Pretending like there is no possibility of AI going wrong is ridiculous.

So we can just continue geoengineering with no aim, or we can act with purpose. There is no third option that is realistic.

We can continue to do it aimlessly, or we can act with purpose.

No one would take this as an act of war just like no one takes cyber attacks as an act of war.

That is way less than the EU has given to Ukraine.

Who cares? Tell them to go pound sand or stop burning so much coal.

Countries are already water seeding. This kind of worry that someone might complain about the eu trying to save itself is so low on the list of things that matter. Let them complain, and the eu can complain about all the other countries geoengineering by burning fossil fuels.

Why? Does china or the us need a consensus before taking existential risks like making ai? Or detonating a nuke that had a tiny chance of setting the atmosphere on fire? Or attacking random countries with almost no rationale or plan?

This kind of thinking is why the EU is screwed. No other major power cares that much because they aren't at the same level of risk as the eu.

All the downvotes are just showing why no action is being taken even though right now we are literally terraforming the planet with no plan, and it is going to stop the transatlantic currents that keep Europe from becoming arctic.

But sure, just do nothing until Europe becomes an uninhabitable tundra and it is too late to take action. Great plan.