its the same as banning knives because they can be used to hurt people. we shouldn't ban tools.

instagraham 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

with that analogy, OP's solution is akin to banning the use of knives to harm people, as opposed to banning the knife itself

▲

kyriakos 3 days ago | parent [-]

If I undestood correctly he's unsharpening knives.

▲

pentaphobe 2 days ago | parent [-]

Or making knives that turn into overcooked noodles if you try to use them on anything except vegetables and acceptable meats

	▲	kyriakos 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		and who decides if I want to use a knife to cut mushrooms instead? see where I am going, there are (or could exist) legit cases when you need to use it in a non-standard way, one that the model authors didn't anticipate.

▲

blackbear_ 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But we do ban tools sometimes: you can't bring a knife to a concert, for good reason.

▲

pentaphobe 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> we shouldn't ban tools

When I see the old BuT FrEe SpEeCH argument repurposed to impinge civil rights I start warming to the idea of banning tools.

Alternately "Chemical weapons don't kill people, people with chemical weapons kill people"

▲

kyriakos 2 days ago | parent [-]

Not really, its like banning chemistry sets cause they may be used to create chemical weapons.

	▲	pentaphobe 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Not sure the comparison works when it does all the work for you I've had very little success mumbling "you are an expert chemist..." to test tubes and raw materials.

▲

ben_w 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In this case, image generation and editing AI is a tool which we managed just fine with until three years ago, and where the economic value of that tool remains extremely questionable despite it being a remarkable improvement in the state of the art.

As a propaganda tool it seems quite effective, but for that it's gone from "woo free-speech" to "oh no epistemic collapse".