"grateful that literacy, the printing press, computers and the internet became normalised before this notion of "harm" and harm prevention was"
Printing Press -> Reformation -> Thirty Years' War -> Millions Dead
I'm sure that there were lots of different opinions at the time about what kind of harm was introduced by the printing press and what to do about it, and attempts to control information by the Catholic church etc.
The current fad for 'safe' 'AI' is corporate and naive. But there's no simple way to navigate a revolutionary change in the way information is accessed / communicated.
Safetyism is the standard civic religion since 9/11 and I doubt it will go quietly into the night. Much like the bishops and the king had a symbiotic relationship to maintain control and limit change (e.g., King James of KJV Bible fame), the government and corporations have a similarly tense, but aligned relationship. Boogeymen from the left or the right can always be conjured to provide the fear necessary to control
Would millions have died if the old religion gave way to the new one without a fight? The problem for the Vatican was that their rhetoric wasn't at top form after mentally stagnating for a few centuries since arguing with Roman pagans, so war was the only possibility to win.
"The Coddling of the American Mind" by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff is a very good (and troubling) book that talks a lot about "safetyism". I can't recommend it enough.
It's strange that people think Stability is making decisions based on American politics when it isn't an American company and other countries generally have stricter laws in this area.
"Think of the Children" has been the norm since long before it was re-popularized in the 80s for song lyrics, in the 90s encryption, and now everything else.
I almost think it's the eras between that are more notable.
I agree. There should have been guardrails in place to prevent people who espouse extremist viewpoints like Martin Luther from spreading their dangerous and hateful rhetoric. I rest easy knowing that only people with the correct intentions will be able to use AI.
The current focus on "safety" (I would prefer a less gracious term) are based as much on fear as on morality. Fear of government intervention and woke morality. The progress in technology is astounding, the focus on sabotaging then publicly available versions of the technology to promote (and deny) narratives is despicable.
> Way to blame the printing press for the actions of religious extremists.
I don't see GP blaming the printing press for that, they're merely pointing out that one enabled the other, which is absolutely true. I'm damn near a free speech absolutist, and I think the heavy "safety" push by AI is well-meaning but will have unintended consequences that cause more harm than they are meant to prevent, but it seems obvious to me that they can be used much the same as printing presses were by the extremists.
> The lesson isn't. printing press bad, it's extremist irrational belief in any entity is bad (whether it's religion, Trump, etc.).
Printing Press -> Reformation -> Thirty Years' War -> Millions Dead
I'm sure that there were lots of different opinions at the time about what kind of harm was introduced by the printing press and what to do about it, and attempts to control information by the Catholic church etc.
The current fad for 'safe' 'AI' is corporate and naive. But there's no simple way to navigate a revolutionary change in the way information is accessed / communicated.