Thermonuclear weapons are great for excavating large amounts of landmass in quick order. However I would propose that we nonetheless do not make them available to everyone.
I'd dispute that completely. All innovations humans have created have trended towards zero cost to produce. The cost for many things (such as bioweapons, encryption, etc) has become exponentially cheaper to produce over time.
To tightly control access, one would then need exponentially more control of resources, monitoring & in turn reduction of liberty.
To put it into perspective encryption was once (still might be) considered an "arm", so they attempted to regulate its export.
Try to regulate small arms (AR-15, etc) today and you'll end up getting kits where you can build your own for <$500. If you go after the kits, people will make 3D printed fire arms. Go after the 3D manufacturers and you'll end up with torrents where I can download an arsenal of designs (where we are today). So where are we at now? We're monitoring everyones communication, going through peoples mail, and still it's not stopping anything.
That's how technology works -- progress is inevitable, you cannot regulate information.
This is a strange argument. There is a vast difference between a world where you can buy semi-automatic weapons off a store shelf and one where you have to 3d-print one yourself or get a CNC mill to produce it. The point of regulation is to mitigate damage that comes from unfettered access, no regulation can ever prevent it completely. Of course, the comparison between computer programs and physical weapons is not strong in the first place.
Access control doesn't guarantee the prevention of acquisition, but it's a method of regulation. In combination with other methods, it's an effective way of reshaping norms. This is true both on a level of populations but also of on international behaviors.
Bingo. That's all this has been about. It's the "moat" Microsoft and OpenAI have been seeking in the form of government regulation.
It really seems beyond dispute that there are certain tools so powerful that we have no choice but to tightly control access.
> It really seems beyond dispute that there are certain tools so powerful that we have no choice but to tightly control access.
Beyond dispute? Hardly.
But please do illustrate your point with some details and tell us why you think certain tools are too powerful for everyone to have access to.
Firearms. Biological weapons. Nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons. Certain drugs.
I don't know, seems like there's a very long list of stuff we don't want freely circulating.
1 reply →
Hydrogen bombs, because allowing anyone to raze a city during a temper tantrum is bad.
2 replies →
Thermonuclear weapons are great for excavating large amounts of landmass in quick order. However I would propose that we nonetheless do not make them available to everyone.
Except that, you know, these tools are not exclusively yours to begin with.
Something doesn't have to be mine in order for me to identify that it's in my best interest to prevent someone else from having it and then doing so.
> It really seems beyond dispute
I'd dispute that completely. All innovations humans have created have trended towards zero cost to produce. The cost for many things (such as bioweapons, encryption, etc) has become exponentially cheaper to produce over time.
To tightly control access, one would then need exponentially more control of resources, monitoring & in turn reduction of liberty.
To put it into perspective encryption was once (still might be) considered an "arm", so they attempted to regulate its export.
Try to regulate small arms (AR-15, etc) today and you'll end up getting kits where you can build your own for <$500. If you go after the kits, people will make 3D printed fire arms. Go after the 3D manufacturers and you'll end up with torrents where I can download an arsenal of designs (where we are today). So where are we at now? We're monitoring everyones communication, going through peoples mail, and still it's not stopping anything.
That's how technology works -- progress is inevitable, you cannot regulate information.
This is a strange argument. There is a vast difference between a world where you can buy semi-automatic weapons off a store shelf and one where you have to 3d-print one yourself or get a CNC mill to produce it. The point of regulation is to mitigate damage that comes from unfettered access, no regulation can ever prevent it completely. Of course, the comparison between computer programs and physical weapons is not strong in the first place.
2 replies →
Access control doesn't guarantee the prevention of acquisition, but it's a method of regulation. In combination with other methods, it's an effective way of reshaping norms. This is true both on a level of populations but also of on international behaviors.