this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
273 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
73905 readers
3626 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's about the policy. If policymakers listen to so-called "doomers" then we'll have AI regulations and possibly sensible discussions about how to regulate AI. It won't just be a wild west where anything goes and AI corporations can make unthinkable amounts of money. Marc Andreessen, a prominent effective accelerationist, holds that "any deceleration of AI will cost lives. Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder."
So basically, effective accelerationism says that if you want to slow down tech companies literally at all, they're going to call you a murderer because you're speculatively preventing them from maybe saving lives in the future, even though they likely could still save lives in the future if they were allowed to develop the technology within a sensible regulatory framework, and also they are likely going to get tons of people killed along the way with selfish, shortsighted business practices/models that externalize risks/costs while maximizing profits.
I don’t think it’s necessarily true that if we listen to “doomers” we get sensible policy. And it’s probably more likely we get regulatory capture.
But there does exist a sensible middle ground.
I actually think they are correct to bring up the potential upside as something we should consider more in the moral calculus. But the of course it’s taken to a silly extreme.