I’m not trolling, I’m serious. Not even existential risk is justification enough to deny basic liberties.
We already live in a world where this is roughly the case for nuclear technology. It’s not obvious that this is a huge infringement on basic liberties, or that it would be if that were extended to include powerful computers.
(I am assuming that, like we have regulated power plants that produce energy for civilians, we would also have regulated software companies and research labs that can use powerful computers, but have to do so in a way that makes clear they’re not building AI. We also may have different definitions of ‘powerful computers.’)
We already live in a world where this is roughly the case for nuclear technology
And how effective was this at denying rogue, outcast states (like North Korea) access to nuclear weapons?
Also, I don’t think the OP meant just regulations on the supercomputer use. He explicitly mentioned “a single decision-making agency … with exclusive access to post-1950 technology”. So basically everything that involves a transistor is locked up in a government building and you need a security clearance to touch it. That doesn’t look reasonable (never mind desirable) to me.
It’s only roughly the case for nuclear weapons, we have prevented most but not all actors from developing nuclear weapons.
Forming a singleton-lite in 1935 to control access to post-1950 technology was a metaphor for gradually forming a singleton-lite at some point in the future which controls access to further-future technology.
I don’t see the qualitative distinction between “any computer” and “giant computers,” it seems like the same discussion but shifted 60 years forward in time.
I don’t see the qualitative distinction between “any computer” and “giant computers,”
Is there a qualitative distinction between “any bomb” and “nuclear bombs”?
In any case, you are basically arguing for enforced stagnation, for entering a sort of technological stasis, to be enforced by a world government which does have access to high tech. Presumably there will be some sort of a high priest caste to tend to this high tech. Does that sound about right?
This looks like a pretty standard sci-fi dystopia to me. Why do you like it?
We already live in a world where this is roughly the case for nuclear technology. It’s not obvious that this is a huge infringement on basic liberties, or that it would be if that were extended to include powerful computers.
What he said was “exclusive access to post-1950 technology.” That’s a heck of a lot more than “powerful computers.” It also includes, e.g., the entirety of modern transportation technology, communications (especially the Internet), logistics, agricultural automation, and nearly every medical technology.
It would be something like Maoist China in the height of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. What a nightmare.
Also, as mentioned by Lumifer such nuclear restrictions haven’t worked. States that want nuclear weapons have obtained them, and about all that has been accomplished is the retardation of peaceful nuclear technology in the hands of civilians :(
We already live in a world where this is roughly the case for nuclear technology. It’s not obvious that this is a huge infringement on basic liberties, or that it would be if that were extended to include powerful computers.
(I am assuming that, like we have regulated power plants that produce energy for civilians, we would also have regulated software companies and research labs that can use powerful computers, but have to do so in a way that makes clear they’re not building AI. We also may have different definitions of ‘powerful computers.’)
And how effective was this at denying rogue, outcast states (like North Korea) access to nuclear weapons?
Also, I don’t think the OP meant just regulations on the supercomputer use. He explicitly mentioned “a single decision-making agency … with exclusive access to post-1950 technology”. So basically everything that involves a transistor is locked up in a government building and you need a security clearance to touch it. That doesn’t look reasonable (never mind desirable) to me.
It’s only roughly the case for nuclear weapons, we have prevented most but not all actors from developing nuclear weapons.
Forming a singleton-lite in 1935 to control access to post-1950 technology was a metaphor for gradually forming a singleton-lite at some point in the future which controls access to further-future technology.
I don’t see the qualitative distinction between “any computer” and “giant computers,” it seems like the same discussion but shifted 60 years forward in time.
Is there a qualitative distinction between “any bomb” and “nuclear bombs”?
In any case, you are basically arguing for enforced stagnation, for entering a sort of technological stasis, to be enforced by a world government which does have access to high tech. Presumably there will be some sort of a high priest caste to tend to this high tech. Does that sound about right?
This looks like a pretty standard sci-fi dystopia to me. Why do you like it?
I have objections to this comment, but I don’t think that continuing this conversation in this medium is likely to be the best use of our time.
What he said was “exclusive access to post-1950 technology.” That’s a heck of a lot more than “powerful computers.” It also includes, e.g., the entirety of modern transportation technology, communications (especially the Internet), logistics, agricultural automation, and nearly every medical technology.
It would be something like Maoist China in the height of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. What a nightmare.
Also, as mentioned by Lumifer such nuclear restrictions haven’t worked. States that want nuclear weapons have obtained them, and about all that has been accomplished is the retardation of peaceful nuclear technology in the hands of civilians :(