>
But we live in a concrete society, [and] with concrete social and historical circumstances and political realities in this society, it is perfectly obvious that when something like a computer is invented, then it is going to be adopted will be for military purposes. It follows from the concrete realities in which we live, it does not follow from pure logic. But we're not living in an abstract society, we're living in the society in which we in fact live.> If you look at the enormous fruits of human genius that mankind has developed in the last 50 years, atomic energy and rocketry and flying to the moon and coherent light, and it goes on and on and on -- and then it turns out that every one of these triumphs is used primarily in military terms. So it is not reasonable for a scientist or technologist to insist that he or she does not know -- or cannot know -- how it is going to be used.
-- Joseph Weizenbaum
That is not fear. That is being serious and unflinching, if anything.
> We can all wring our hands in fear over what the new technology might do, or we can solve the problems we care about.
I'm doing neither. I said it's a valid question, with which you agree. The rest is a straw man apropos nothing anyone actually said, here, and wringing your hands about it. It's a way bigger waste of time than asking a simple question and let those who want to answer that, and let those who don't want answer it simply don't answer it, instead of making up this "issue" with the question itself.
> Authenticity was hard before this, and it'll be hard after.
So "nothing changes", but technology is super important? You could say the same about, say, curing cancer. People will live for a while and then die, with or without it. Why since it makes no difference, what'd be the problem with "fearing" it?