Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We should have a discussion and debate about it. The point is, IF people decide that it IS dangerous, then there is no mechanism to stop it.



Huh? There are well known mechanisms after that point. Such as a resolution of the UN Security Council.


Really? Let's say the bottom 70% of earners in the U.S. decided that AI was dangerous and its development should be stopped. Do you think the top 30% would allow that?


How does this relate to the Security Council or any other known mechanisms that operate in the world?


Because those mechanisms don't work to stop most of the dangerous economic activities.


They would work as mechanisms after the point when the world’s nations agree to it… Like I said…?

Clearly the world’s nations aren’t guaranteed to share your views…


My entire point is that we don't have mechanisms to protect the people. I was not referring to the power structure of the nations, or those with the most money.


This seems to be going in circles…

Who gets to define “protect the people”…?


Perhaps we should hold a referendum: destroy AI?


Who has the authority to hold any referendum for the entire planet?

Dodging the core issue over and over again isn’t going to lead anywhere…




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: