“We clearly can’t “trust” these companies not incentivized to randomly kill lots of people, so we might as well give everyone the ability to randomly kill lots of people”.
It’s interesting that most of the examples people making this argument give are high consequence, high difficulty (could you actually murder your coworker with a pen? I’m skeptical.) low kill count methodologies of violence.
We’re specifically talking about low difficulty, highly effective, high kill count methodologies of violence.
And yes, being able to kill a lot of people trivially, even with huge consequences is something people do. Most countries don’t let you run around with an armory as a result of that.
No, you don't. What stops people is actually access to knowledge. There are killers of varying levels of efficacy; making killing easier means more people die. It's 1-1.
You could literally develop a hyper-intelligent advisor on how to kill people or perform dangerous hacks using ablated 'open source' AI. You can do this right now, this very moment, and have an extremely adept advisor on how to do really, really bad things.
>According to the IAU working definition (from August 2018) an exoplanet can orbit a brown dwarf. It requires a mass below 13 MJ and a mass ratio of M/Mcentral<2/(25+√{621}), or roughly 1/25. This means that an object with a mass up to 3.2 MJ around a brown dwarf with a mass of 80 MJ is considered a planet. It also means that an object with a mass up to 0.52 MJ around a brown dwarf with a mass of 13 MJ is considered a planet
The problem is that it’s impossible to out think a robot you designed to be an expert at cybersecurity on the topic of cybersecurity. The alternative is not developing this and that’s not going to happen.
I think you misunderstood. “Narrative” typically frames something as polemic or open to interpretation, which this is about equally so to the whole “spherical Earth” story.