So are guns, which we constitutionally protected. In fact there’s probably a decent argument that AI should fall under 2nd amendment protection.

▲

ern 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Don’t legally serious second Amendment supporters regard “arms” as things that can be carried, and are evolved from/analogous to their 18th century hand-carried guns?

It would be hard to classify AI (or tanks, artillery, missiles, aircraft) as “arms” that can be “borne” in that sense.

▲

ajyoon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is your legal theory that any technology which is dangerous should be protected under the second amendment, simply because it is dangerous?

▲

chatmasta 5 hours ago | parent [-]

No, my legal theory is that you cannot simultaneously compare technology to a weapon and also say it falls outside the bounds of the 2nd amendment.

	▲	ajyoon 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Dual use does not mean weapon. And even then, it is simply not the case that all weapons fall under the second amendment.
	▲	asadotzler 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		a tactical nuke is a weapon to which the second amendment has no applicability

▲

SilverElfin 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It certainly falls under 1st amendment protection since LLMs are about accessing speech. But that hasn’t stopped Dario from trying hard to push for regulations and bans that limit our civil rights. He and Sam Altman want regulatory capture at the expense of our right to free speech.