[fieldcny]

Jury decides to change their verdict after being algorithmicly sentenced to 90 days in jail for using the wrong exit in the court building as they were being released from duty by the court officers.

CEO of VerdictAI is quoted as saying “shit happens, if they have any value as humans they would have enough money to get out of this, so the AI must be right. One must not lose sight of the fact that we have freed Americans from millions of hours of manual labor with our InmatesAI volunteer workforce.”

[janderson215]

Maybe I’m making assumptions a rather than making an inference, but this seems like the perspective of somebody who wants to stop development of future technology altogether because of bad actors.

I’m not saying there aren’t concerns, but risks can be mitigated and precautions put into place to prevent catastrophes. Stopping development because of valid concerns is not the right move. It’s not even the right move to stop developing weaponry which has a stated goal of causing direct harm to other humans.

There are people in the world who will attempt to do these things and much more dangerous things recklessly and with far worse intentions than making money, and if those people get technological and military superiority over The West, the world will look very different than it does today. There are a whole lot more ways the world could be worse than it could be better.

The current world order is not ideal, but think about what the actual long term outcome is if The West stops.

[FridgeSeal]

“Stopping a small number of incredibly over-resourced people from externalising consequences for their sole gain and causing significant and long lasting woe and damage on the rest of us” != “stopping innovation”

Nobody is saying “uh uh, no more problem solving”,drawing that conclusion would be uncharitable at best, and “wrong” at worst. The argument is “gosh, maybe we could have some innovation that’s actually useful, and not some polished-turd/enshittification”.