←back to thread

328 points rntn | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
cakealert ◴[] No.44612557[source]
EU regulations are sometimes able to bully the world into compliance (eg. cookies).

Usually minorities are able to impose "wins" on a majority when the price of compliance is lower than the price of defiance.

This is not the case with AI. The stakes are enormous. AI is full steam ahead and no one is getting in the way short of nuclear war.

replies(2): >>44612773 #>>44613635 #
oaiey ◴[] No.44612773[source]
But AI also carries tremendous risks, from something simple as automating warfare to something like a evil AGI.

In Germany we have still traumas from automatic machine guns setup on the wall between East and West Germany. The Ukraine is fighting a drone war in the trenches with a psychological effect on soldiers comparable to WWI.

Stake are enormous. Not only toward the good. There is enough science fiction written about it. Regulation and laws are necessary!

replies(4): >>44613225 #>>44614062 #>>44614492 #>>44614965 #
tim333 ◴[] No.44614492[source]
I think your machine gun example illustrates people are quite capable of masacreing each other without AI or even high tech - in past periods sometimes over 30% of males died in warfare. While AI could get involved it's kind of a separate thing.
replies(1): >>44614626 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[] No.44614626[source]
Yeah, his automated gun phobia argument is dumb. Should we ban all future tech development because some people are a scared of some things that can be dangerous but useful? NO.

Plus, ironically, Germany's Rheinmetall is a leader in automated anti-air guns so the people's phobia of automated guns is pointless and, at least in this case, common sense won, but in many others like nuclear energy, it lost.

It seems like Germans area easy to manipulate to get them to go against their best interests, if you manage to trigger some phobias in them via propaganda. "Ohoohoh look out, it's the nuclear boogieman, now switch your economy to Russian gas instead, it's safer"

replies(2): >>44615696 #>>44617339 #
1718627440 ◴[] No.44615696[source]
The switching to russian gas is bad for know, but was rational back then. The idea was to give russia leverage on europe besides war, so that they don't need war.
replies(1): >>44616850 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[] No.44616850[source]
>but was rational back then.

Only if you're a corrupt German politician getting bribed by Russia to sell out long term national security for short term corporate profits.

It was also considered a stupid idea back then by NATO powers asking Germany WTF are you doing, tying your economy to the nation we're preparing to go to war with.

> The idea was to give russia leverage on europe besides war, so that they don't need war.

The present day proves it was a stupid idea.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." - Churchill

replies(2): >>44616934 #>>44618785 #
1. blub ◴[] No.44618785[source]
Here’s a nice history of the decades old relationship: https://www.dw.com/en/russian-gas-in-germany-a-complicated-5...

It was a major success, contributing to the thawing of relationships with the Soviet Union and probably contributed to the peaceful end of the Soviet Union. It supported several EU countries through their economic development and kept the EU afloat through the financial crisis.

It was a very important source of energy and there is no replacement. This can be seen by the flight of capital, deindustrialisation and poor economic prospects in Germany and the EU.

But as far as I know, many countries still import energy from Russia, either directly or laundered through third parties.