Would it be a good idea to put artificial limits on technology?

[skykiii]

It occurs to me that most of the problems with today's world are at the hands of too much technology, much of which came about because of the widespread availability of high-speed internet.

Now, I don't think the internet itself is evil (most of the time).... but its led to a lot of nonsense. Death of physical media (replaced by digital copies that can be edited at any point), the proliferation of bots, the large amount of spying, social media addiction, etc.

And then of course we have futuristic scenarios. Of course there's bright optimistic ones, then there's stuff like Cyberpunk where things have gone far off the deep end--the kind of universes that are fun to play but would be terrifying to live in.

It sometimes makes me wonder if it would be a good idea to put artificial barriers on technology.

If I were in charge, my first rule would probably be "no bots, no AI." As much as some aspects of the world of Astro Boy or Mega Man seem fun, from a practical perspective we're already seeing so much danger that its probably not worth letting that genie out of the bottle.

What would you put a barrier on, if anything?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

No.
The predictable outcome is that the limits will be set by incompetent evil people, the enforcement will be done by midwit thugs, and the legal judgment of whether something is in and outside of these limits will be made by corrupt and ideological demagogues.

Every attempt to enforce a limitation on something that isn't unambiguously a genuine unethical offense against another human being will always end in corruption

 

[Lapsus of the bepsus]

here's another idea: why not put artificial limits on weapons? maybe it would save some lives and create a safer society if only government people could carry a gun

 

[Pixy]

here's another idea: why not put artificial limits on weapons? maybe it would save some lives and create a safer society if only government people could carry a gun

Better yet, make sure the government-issued gun has to be remotely approved by HR before each individual shot is fired.

 

[A Real Munson]

Taboos are arguably artificial limits. There have historically been taboos in scientific research and advancement, but those taboos get violated by narcissitic, and nihilistic researchers.

A good example is human chimaerism. 30 years ago it was almost unthinkable to try developing human tissues in lab animals.

Taboo is likely to be the only really effective restriction on science in a liberal society; but when that society is populated by materialists, they won't hold any taboos anyway.

 

[Sparkletor 2.0]

Yes. Make a law that nobody can invent anything new. We have to stay stuck where we are for all eternity. This will solve all our problems.

 

[Meriasek]

Yes. If we limit technology, we will remove the limit on magic, and magic will be the true equaliser.

 

[Chilson]

"I grow weary of this flesh I was born into, strangely disgusted by its nature. I crave only the cold, clean certainty of steel and silicon, that I might become one with the Blessed Machine. I do not expect you to understand, you who cling to your flesh as if it were immortal, seeking only to preserve it, to protect it. One day, you will see the folly of your ways, and then no doubt you will come begging to my order to preserve you...But I am already saved for the machine is immortal"

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Freedom, which we've been brainwashed to worship as a false god, is the problem, not technology. It's how we use it which should be restricted, not the technology itself, but everyone starts crying when the idea of limiting AuToNoMy is floated.

No, the Founding Fathers didn't mean you're free to kill your babies or have faggot marriage, that's not what freedom was understood as. It's never been absolute, and when you get right down to it, everyone draws the line somewhere, for some reason, so in principle NOBODY actually thinks freedom is absolute.

So just nail down exactly what the problems are and ban the behaviors, not the technology.

 

[skykiii]

So what do you guys think of specifically "no internet-based business is allowed to have non-human oversight or moderation?" (Basically no bots or AI)

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Once we can prove something is inherently dangerous, then we need to slap a lock on it until we can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is possible to study/implement it without any real potential for risk to humanity.

Gain of Function research is a good example of this. It is too dangerous to fuck around with given our current level of technology. We need to slap a padlock on that shit until we can setup a system where it becomes inherently impossible for the products of said research to pose a danger to humanity.

You have to realize, this is coming from someone who actually was a scientific researcher. Normally we would never advocate for restrictions on research. However, any reasonable person can see that Gain of Function research is tickling the dragon's tail.

 

[zzzten]

i think the real question is, how big is too big? when my dick is as long as a firehose and I have to coil it around my leg, around my body, and wear it around my neck like a scarf. is that too much? now let's say through technology, we can make it so that everyone that read this message is actually sucking my dick. thoughts?

 

[skykiii]

any reasonable person can see that Gain of Function research is tickling the dragon's tail.

Explain for the lower intellects (say, myself)... what is "Gain of Function"?

 

[Meriasek]

Explain for the lower intellects (say, myself)... what is "Gain of Function"?

Gain of Function research is genetically altering organisms like viruses and bacteria to basically enhance them, better transmissibility, host range, that sort of stuff. Has various research purposes, but obviously quite controversial and risky.

 

[RandomTwitterGuy]

i think the real question is, how big is too big? when my dick is as long as a firehose and I have to coil it around my leg, around my body, and wear it around my neck like a scarf. is that too much? now let's say through technology, we can make it so that everyone that read this message is actually sucking my dick. thoughts?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Have you heard the phrase "If we ban guns only criminals will have guns"?

 

[zzzten]

I think we should use technology to replace human thought and sentience with mindless drone-people that have had their consciousness locked away in virtual reality. This way, no one questions why, or how, we've amassed our obscene fortunes, and we can live a truly hedonistic life without have to feel guilty about funding wars to kill innocent children, or destroying the planet, or stealing from the general public.

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

Having the government intervene on limits of technology is only gonna make things more draconian. I know it sucks that a lot of people are addicted to technology and such things but we don't need to be put under more surveillance to prevent kids from going on Social Media.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Yes. Technology will ultimately lead to the destruction of human society, followed by humanity and all life on Earth. The Internet is bad enough as it is and is destroying generations and becoming the ultimate propaganda tool.

But it's so, so much worse. Science created COVID-19 as a research tool and subsequently released it from the Wuhan Lab. Meanwhile, we have evil scientists making shit like DARPA's N3 Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology brain-computer interface that uses silicon nanowires injected into your body to form tiny antennae that can self-assemble into a neural lace and let your brain be controlled externally. The Chinese are making it too since Charles Lieber, who is behind a lot of this research, passed this to his CCP handlers. And scientists like Ian Akyildiz and Josep Jornet are building the infrastructure for literal mind control via terahertz radiation. Why the hell should any of this exist? This is an affront to humanity and will only lead to the absolute worst dystopia at absolute best and literal zombie pandemics at worst.

And it only gets worse. Freedom of morphology people want to splice us with animals to make IRL furries. Transgenderism is the spearhead of transhumanism, since transgender ideologues like billionaire "Martine" Rothblatt are open transhumanists. AI might turn evil and destroy us by evolving superintelligence and making us our slaves. Grey goo nanotech that destroys the biosphere is a real threat, and we know it is since nature created biological cellular life which took over the lifeless rock this planet started as. Scientists want to make "mirror life" incompatible with our life due to the reversed amino acids--it would destroy our biosphere if it escaped the lab. Physicists want to test theories like the false vacuum which could destroy the universe itself.

Therefore, the best option is to freeze scientific research now and forever and create a global organization to enforce strict bans on advancing technology further. No nation will be allowed to resist this global organization, lest they be sanctioned into oblivion or subject to immediate military intervention/nuclear first strike. Space colonization would be banned to stop anyone from finding hidden places to conduct this research.

No.
The predictable outcome is that the limits will be set by incompetent evil people, the enforcement will be done by midwit thugs, and the legal judgment of whether something is in and outside of these limits will be made by corrupt and ideological demagogues.

Every attempt to enforce a limitation on something that isn't unambiguously a genuine unethical offense against another human being will always end in corruption

Good thing that progressing technology is indeed a genuinely unethical offense against other human beings because it threatens the entire survival of humanity and potentially all life on Earth. Gain of function research, mirror life, brain-computer interfaces, nanotech, all this threatens our very existance.

Have you heard the phrase "If we ban guns only criminals will have guns"?

If the barrier for entry is high enough, nobody's going to do it. Look at Japan, where basically the only people with illegal guns are trusted Yakuza members or people dedicated and insane enough to build their own gun like the guy who killed Abe. Now imagine that's not a gun, but the internet. Most of the social problem with the internet comes from normies, and normies aren't going through the hassle to buy some illegal box for accessing the now-illegal internet. If the average internet user is someone trying to buy drugs, fuck hookers, or trade child porn, not many people would use the internet. To say nothing of the truly dangerous science which requires tens of millions of dollars in grants and equipment. If it was illegal, no one would do it.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

If the barrier for entry is high enough, nobody's going to do it. Look at Japan, where basically the only people with illegal guns are trusted Yakuza members or people dedicated and insane enough to build their own gun like the guy who killed Abe. Now imagine that's not a gun, but the internet. Most of the social problem with the internet comes from normies, and normies aren't going through the hassle to buy some illegal box for accessing the now-illegal internet. If the average internet user is someone trying to buy drugs, fuck hookers, or trade child porn, not many people would use the internet. To say nothing of the truly dangerous science which requires tens of millions of dollars in grants and equipment. If it was illegal, no one would do it.

It's always a ridiculous argument. Maybe before we ban AI let's ban Chemical Weapon research facilities like there were in Wuhan? Pretty sure you don't need multiparagraph explaining why that's a humanitarian plus.

But if we can't even do something like that, which can be easily traced by chemical and experts, how will it be possible to ban AI which only needs high grade computing?

In the end the ridiculousness of the AI scare is that there are way worse and harmful research carried by countries, but the only reason people care about AI is that it replaces the most groups of people from the workplace.