@FediThing@social.chinwag.org
Correct. The #AI companies are in a prisoner's dilemma. Neither of them wants to slow down first and the government doesn't shackle them in fear they could lose to the Chinese. Feels like an arms race on steroids.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org Amen to that! I was of the generation where when I tried a new pair of shoes on, the store would x-ray my feet to make sure they fit. Boy was that stupid!

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org
Yeah but in all of those cases, only after decades of campaigning and with corporations putting up a big fight. They never do what is right over what is profitable.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org we also have to remember that lots of people had to work very hard for each of these changes to happen, there was a lot of resistance to change from the people who were getting rich off these things

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org

We ban viruses and jail people who send them. AI in its run free form has been a virus from conception, born scraping the internet stealing everones art, music, literature, expert knowledge, etc. Should have been banned and its perpetrators punished then. Only now do we see action when these bot viruses hit their parent corporations. They don't need 'safeguards'. The programing is doing exactly what it is designed to do. Programs designed to invade, steal, and disrupt should simply be banned. Boundaries need to be defined and abusers be held accountable in all facets of IT and the internet. Just because criminals exist does not mean criminal behavior should be normalized for the billionaire class.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org just for the record, asbests protections are being rolled back in the USA (it was never truly banned). It is also an amazing product, in many respects not bettered but only some asbestos types are awful in certain states.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org @FediThing@social.chinwag.org hey while I get the point you're making, what you're comparing ai too seem to be mostly materials and compounds to construct other technologies whereas ai itself is a major high level technological innovation, not easily replaceable and with higher economic impact. I do agree that as civilization we can make decisions to change enormously impactful things, but we'll be continuously constrained by the system(s) that require higher economic output within capitalism

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org

But it only happens when you still have the oversight and compassion in a society in place to instate those policies.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org But in all the cited cases it took years of fierce fighting to fend off preposterous arguing by people benefiting from destroying peoples health and by people with no knowledge or even bribed scientists arguing with ludicrous assertions to kill changes, keep dangerous habits or keep earning more bribes.
When looking at tobacco it took decades (like it did with asbestos), and when looking at fossil fuel it's close to a century now!

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org

The flaw in this comparison is that you're talking about specific chemical substances, whereas AI is underlying infrastructure.

When we banned CFCs or leaded petrol, we didn't stop refrigerating food or driving cars — we just swapped out the toxic ingredient for a safe one. You can't just swap out 'AI' for a safer version because AI isn't a single product; it's a foundational layer of computation, much like electricity or the internet. You don't ban the underlying layer because of how it's used; you regulate the specific applications.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org True! And the problem today is distinctly not that anything is technologically insurmountable. IMO, it's that our governments allowed monopolies to flourish, and those monopolies are obstructing us from literally saving the world.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org I get what you are saying but Asbestos was absolutely not banned when it was found harmful.

I was found harmful 2000 years ago, it was found harmful in 1890, yet it was somewhat banned in 1990 in france yet used in manufacturing until 5 years later.
It was only fully banned and calls to be removed from places in 1997 after massive mobilisation.

Like harmful is not enough, it is the mobilisation that does the other part of the job.
And people I think are doing a good job to push back.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org

My only quibble on all things things would be, yes but not soon enough

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org <climate cataclysms burst into the chat like fuckin’ hooligans>

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org The same for the DDT ban

p.s. To make clear, none of these bans happened straight away, and the respective industry fought them all, but they were forced to give way in the end because of people who fought back to protect human life.

Industry is not invincible, it can be regulated. That's why they spend so much time and money lobbying politicians, because they're terrified of the power that governments have over them.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org Sadly the current people in charge of the world looked at humanity taking collective action against CFCs, Leaded Petrol and smoking and vowed 'never again'. so have captured the media and have a pipeline of paid academics ready to go out there to prevent consensus on the extent of the harms being caused.

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org Look, if we don't lick radium paint brushes, people who do lick radium brushes will win the race. I'm afraid that's just how it is, now please buy into my IPO