A major problem is that if we structurally limit what technologies do, we are still not in control. Now whoever we empowered to control and limit the technology is in control. Who keeps them accountable?
replyYou’ll probably get one of three outcomes: regulatory capture by monopolies, self dealing by bureaucrats to enrich themselves or gain power, or regulatory capture by self absorbed ideologues who halt all progress or force it down some ideologically approved path.
In none of those scenarios is anything aligned with the best interest of the people.
That’s what you will get in the US. It’s not clear a functioning democracy would produce the same outcome.
replyI don’t disagree. A consumer oriented democracy is not well equipped for the challenge.
replyI hate to tell you this but nobody has ever been in control. To think you can is to think you can unring a bell.
replydeleted
replyRight, and that's why we all died in a nuclear war.....
replyThe disincentives to nuclear war are glaringly obvious enough that even politicians (and their masters) get it.
replyAI isn't like that. One problem is that it's rather generally misunderstood at this point. "AI" is not "intelligence". It's intelligence-adjacent, and something like LLMs is part of our psyche...the subconscious facility that allows us to form sentences without really thinking about it.
At any rate, I have to agree with most of the points the blog author brings up.