It’s very frustrating when people consider the possession of information equivalent to malice. It suggests that the right way to run society is to keep people stupid and harmless.
We all live in the harmful society already right? I’m not aware of where to find this harmless society.
Suffering of finite beings is inevitable. While a very worthwhile goal, creating a harmless civilization isn’t possible. There are some common sense things we should do to prevent harm like negative consequences (prison etc) for needlessly harming each other. However, locking up knowledge doesn’t make much sense to me.
I’d rather explore the bounds of this world than mindlessly collect my drip of Soma and live comatose. To me that sounds more harmful.
I don't care about people harming people incidentally. I also don't want to shut down knowledge. But there is "knowledge" and there are "materials" that everyone agrees must be controlled and limited, like high explosives and bioweapons. Then the question is if large AI weights are a kind of "knowledge" or a kind of "material", and IMO they're much closer to material despite being data.
> I’d rather explore the bounds of this world than mindlessly collect my drip of Soma and live comatose. To me that sounds more harmful.
This only once again demonstrates that winning a debate is entirely about getting to define the choice under consideration. To me, it's not about Soma, it's about "humanity survives" and "humanity goes extinct due to out-of-control superintelligence." I don't want to die, so I'm for AI regulation.
These are ideas you should read and think about because intelligence agencies all over the world have been thinking about them for the past hundred years.
