the problem is Capitalism does not need Democracy to function or survive

many countries like Singapore, etc. prove this easily

Authoritarianism can even be desired by Capitalists if they know who to bribe to remove regulations and get approvals

and no surprise, that's exactly where the United States is right now, teetering on the edge of that hole, about to fall in

"AI" is going to be weaponized, already is, and any resistance against its abuse is simply overriden with threats to destroy profits or even company survival at all

I think this runs into a basic issue that all large software systems that enforce the law contribute to locking down a society because laws tend to need be broken to be changed.

That a system can be avoided offends the investor who want their products to be ubiquitous.

The system that is not perfectly enforced offends the engineer who dislikes broken things.

Yet both are required if we as a society are to grow. I think the thing that it might be good to learn is when to say "I've done/had enough."

Harder than it looks. Everything is dual use. Certainly didn't expect my game development telemetry[1] system used to improve artillery [2]...

[1] https://gdcvault.com/play/1012227/Development-Telemetry-in-V...

[2] https://www.army.mil/article/85934/solution_to_weapon_develo...

The automobile, the transistor, the Internet, and basically every other technology ~could~ be used by a police state. I'm not sure how that is a helpful rule at all.

Libertarianism has its moments but it generally hasn't caught on because state capacity is unique and useful. And virtually every last bit of it can be used to facilitate a police state because it's... a state.

Sure, we could all live without IDs and use motio belli for defence but this arrangement will be soon replaced by someone more organized because there is a huge return to that organization despite its risks.

What is the point of writing something like this?

It's embarassing for an adult to think like this. There will always be someone willing to build that thing (and that was true even before llms)

Has this philosophical approach ever worked? It's a commonplace in the hard sciences and engineering fields (ie, refusing to work on weapons systems), but weapons systems are elite and well-compensated engineering projects that don't have any trouble finding talent. The same thing goes for NSA, which has a line out the door from elite academia.

I'm not dismissing the sentiment here. It's morally sound. You should act in accordance with your principles and it useful to be reminded how those principles intersect the world. I have similar guardrails (probably not the same as the author's). I just wouldn't want people to overestimate what can be accomplished with this approach.

Recently my wife got locked out of her bank account - all cards blocked, unable to log in to the website or app, so effectively her whole finances were frozen - because she was trying to order a new bank card over the phone and some system couldnt do voice recognition (which we did not know they even used). We were getting ready to get on a plane to NYC, from California (she banks with TD bank) but after a tearful session of phoning anyone and everyone we could at TD, suddenly it magically got reversed.

The problem is not just the tech, its building systems where humans are essentially slaves to the system, with no recourse or power over whats happening.

The other rule here is that you cannot avoid politics if you want to create a better world. If you want the freedom to develop technology without worrying it will be used by a police state, you need to put in the work to make sure a police state doesn't happen - you cannot ignore politics and just "focus on technology."

I'd be careful banging two rocks together else someone might start a war with them!

I've been arguing with folks on Reddit about this lately when it comes to Google's changes to Android (where they've made it more difficult to install any software on your device without Google first tracking the identity of the developer). My argument ultimately comes down to the fact that Google (and Apple already) have built a technology that gives them immense power to control individual computing freedoms, and no matter their internal policy, they still must follow US law. No amount of promises or legit good faith on their part matter, they've made a dangerous technology and are behold to a government that is very eager to censor anything it doesn't like. It's so disappointing to see 1. Google engineers build such a thing, and 2. For people to support it.

The article is not completely wrong in its premises, but phrased incorrectly.

This is not about technologies (after all, an authoritarian government will use many existing technologies, from the car to the computer), but about powers granted to a government, that could be used differently by the next party/majority in power.

The answer to that is to not grant government too much power in the first place.

Of course, this is often a contentious point for leftists, since they do want to grant government a lot of power in the first place; they're just concerned that the exact same powers will then be used by a different political side in a way that bothers a different category of people.

Technology is force multiplier. Everything could be used for oppression. Deal with it - the future is boot stomping on human face forever. There are lucky few that could choose whether they will be the face or foot. But it is inevitable.

Or we could stop all tech development. But it is not going to happen.

Bertrand Russell:

“If war is not impossible, then every advance in scientific technique in an advance in mass murder”

As true today as then

You can replace war with “police state” and it’s the same message.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GzTlTVaYDtk

this is an important topic, and i hate that people forget how difficult it is. in any political conversation, it's pretty easy to pull this thread to unravel anyone's adamant belief in one thing or another (e.g. gun control). my biggest concern is that people seem less willing than before to actually have those discussions.. they'll immediately just label you as being opposed to their views, "against" them.. when really we need these conversations to find viable policy solutions that wont easily be used in the exact opposite way that they were intended when implemented

how about you guys understand that state is criminal master org. that uses violence monopoly? is it too high level or hard to understand this?

see war on drugs and more

"Civic hygiene isn't about saying we distrust our current government - it's about not trusting the next government." I've made similar points. Granting one government administration more power, is by extension granting it to all future administrations. Do so only with great care.

This is missing the "(2013)" at the end of the HN link, but it does seem weirdly prescient as we say a rise of more polarised politics across the World, just 13 years later.

I find it frusrating how the conversation around this almost always focuses on one side of the equation. Why is it always about preventing tools from being built in case authoritarians comes to power rather than preventing those authoritarians from coming to power in the first place? I'm far more scared off the authoritarian aspect than the tech. The Nazis didn't need Flock cameras to kill millions. It seems like focusing on the actual bad guys is going to be more effective because if the state wants to bear its weight on you, it rarely requires tech to do it.