Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a vast middle ground between completely unregulated technology and an Orwellian state. Let's not entertain absolutes. > We let people buy 6,000 pound vehicles capable of traveling 100+ mph. > We let people buy sharp knives and guns. And heat their homes with flammable gas. And hike up dangerous tall mountains. All of those have regulations around them, and people have gotten familiar with how they work. More…
> We created strict regulations that plane manufacturers and airlines must follow In response to actual incidents, not imagined ones. Regulations should not come first. We already have the biggest companies chasing after a regulatory moat to protect themselves from competition and commoditization, and that's not how this should work. > we took precautions to ensure the necessary safety. No we didn't! We used the tech…
Not _just_ in response to actual incidents. Airplanes don't need to crash for us to realize that flying is dangerous. Pilot licenses were required as early as 1911[1], years before the commercial aviation industry was established. International regulations were passed in 1919[2], when the aviation industry was still in its infancy.
> Europe is a good model for a presumptive, over-regulated society. Their comparable industries are smaller and lag behind our own because of it.
The EU is one of the few governments that at least tries to protect its citizens from Big Tech. Whatever you think it's lagging behind in, I'd say they're better off for it. And yet even with all this "over-regulation", industry-leading giants like ASML and Airbus, and tech startups like Spotify, Klarna and Bolt are able to exist and prosper.
> Even laws and regulations proposed for mature technologies can be completely spurious.
I'm not saying that more regulation is always a good thing. I lean towards libertarianism. What I do think is important is to give enough time for society and governments to catch up to the technology being put out into the world, especially with something as disruptive as AI. We should carefully consider its implications, educate people and new generations about its harms and merits, so that our institutions and communities can be better prepared to handle it. We obviously can't prepare for everything, but there's a world of difference between a YOLO approach you seem to be suggesting, and a measured way forward.
A counterpoint to a lax stance on industry regulation can be seen with Big Tobacco. It took many decades of high mortality rates related to smoking for governments to pass strict regulations. Tobacco companies lied and fought those regulations until the very end, and now they're still prospering in countries with lax regulations, or pivoting to more acceptable products like vapes.
My point is that companies don't care about harming society, even when they know their product is capable of it. Their only goal is increasing profits. With products like AI this potential harm is not immediately visible, and we might not discover it decades from now, perhaps when it's too late to reverse the damage.
> You think of society as a failing institution of sorts.
Not society as a whole. But if you don't see a shift away from democratic governments to authoritarianism, and an increase in sociopolitical tensions worldwide over the last decade in particular, we must be living in different worlds. If you also don't see the role the internet has played in this change, and how AI has the potential to make it significantly worse, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.
> You are presupposing an outcome and you worry too much.
It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together. :) I honestly don't worry much about this, but I am dumbfounded about how more people aren't ringing alarms from rooftops about the direction we're heading in.
> Don't regulate technology, regulate abusive behavior using the existing legal frameworks.
Technology moves too fast for legal frameworks to exist. And even when they do, companies will do their best to avoid them.
> We will pass all the laws we need as situations arise. And it will work.
It _might eventually_ "work". In the meantime, those situations that arise could have unprecedented impact that could've been avoided given some time and preparation.
What you seem to be ignoring is that modern technology is not just about building TVs, cars and airplanes. We came very close to a global thermonuclear war in the last century, and tensions are now rising again. Allowing technology to advance with no railguards or preparation, while more countries are ruled by egomaniacal manchildren, is just a recipe for disaster. All I'm suggesting is that it would be in our collective best interest to put more thought into the implications of what we're building.
[1]: https://newenglandaviationhistory.com/tag/connecticut-aviati...