As much as I’m a privacy guy, those are legit concerns IMO. IDK where the future goes, but I see reasons to worry.
TBH I’m more worried about the overall infopocalypse that’s already in progress. But I also can’t rule out an AI teaching somebody unhinged how to make a devastating biological weapon. Something only accessible in the past to very highly trained ppl, who were not gonna do that.
But I also want my privacy! And I believe privacy is essential to a functional democracy. Feels like every choice is a bad choice.
Yeah, that’s why in an ideal case, I could see a two-tier model developing. Similar to how we handle weapons today. At least in the US, handguns and rifles are pretty obtainable. But anything more than that is heavily restricted. Even 2nd Amendment folks don’t advocate for the private ownership of heavy artillery, FPV suicide drones, armed tanks, etc. We allow anyone to own the things that, while still dangerous, don’t give you the power to kill absurd numbers of people. Even with an AR-15, you’re only taking out so many people before you’re taken down. You’re not a danger to civilization by owning an AR-15.
Computers could work the same way. As AI technology improves, we’ll get a better understanding of the minimum level of compute needed to be dangerous. You then set a limit for unlicensed computing below that level. Unlicensed? Have all the privacy you want. This lets you play games and create text, video, and most any form of expression you want. If your creative medium is as an artist of fully immersive 4K virtual reality worlds, you might have some trouble. But pretty much anything you currently use a computer for would fall under the unlicensed compute threshold.
Above this threshold? Everything is locked down. Everything is logged. Everything is scanned. You’re using a tool that is as dangerous as a pile of plutonium, and we treat it with an appropriate level of respect. Dealing with this privacy violation is just a price you have to pay if you want to use these tools.
As much as I’m a privacy guy, those are legit concerns IMO. IDK where the future goes, but I see reasons to worry.
TBH I’m more worried about the overall infopocalypse that’s already in progress. But I also can’t rule out an AI teaching somebody unhinged how to make a devastating biological weapon. Something only accessible in the past to very highly trained ppl, who were not gonna do that.
But I also want my privacy! And I believe privacy is essential to a functional democracy. Feels like every choice is a bad choice.
Yeah, that’s why in an ideal case, I could see a two-tier model developing. Similar to how we handle weapons today. At least in the US, handguns and rifles are pretty obtainable. But anything more than that is heavily restricted. Even 2nd Amendment folks don’t advocate for the private ownership of heavy artillery, FPV suicide drones, armed tanks, etc. We allow anyone to own the things that, while still dangerous, don’t give you the power to kill absurd numbers of people. Even with an AR-15, you’re only taking out so many people before you’re taken down. You’re not a danger to civilization by owning an AR-15.
Computers could work the same way. As AI technology improves, we’ll get a better understanding of the minimum level of compute needed to be dangerous. You then set a limit for unlicensed computing below that level. Unlicensed? Have all the privacy you want. This lets you play games and create text, video, and most any form of expression you want. If your creative medium is as an artist of fully immersive 4K virtual reality worlds, you might have some trouble. But pretty much anything you currently use a computer for would fall under the unlicensed compute threshold.
Above this threshold? Everything is locked down. Everything is logged. Everything is scanned. You’re using a tool that is as dangerous as a pile of plutonium, and we treat it with an appropriate level of respect. Dealing with this privacy violation is just a price you have to pay if you want to use these tools.
IDK, I’m less sold on your proposed solution, than on your proposed problem existing. :)